•  ■•'Ml' 

Si 


1      A     == 

is* 

■ 

1   A  = 

SOUTHERN  RE( 

C  ooi- 

^ 

1 

» 

\          ■    /      **;■    .    ' 

1  — i 
5 ? 

6 a 

3—^1 

O 

YFACIL 

u 

to 

•H 

o 

§ 

1 

*Jt4 

H|^^^^^l 

^^H 

^ 

s 

(0 

-p 

^^^^^^H 

U 

CO 

C 

^^^^^^^H 

o 

5J 

^^^1 

>H 

6 

0) 

^^^^^^^1 

^ 

-p 

r-t 

^^^^^^^M 

0) 

P 

^^H 

^ 

c 
o 

0) 

^^^^^^1 

•> 

PhX) 

^^^^^^^H 

• 

:z> 

^^^^^^^1 

o 

X) 

^^^^^^^1 

c 

•p 

c 

^^^1 

M 

u 
o 

ai 

^^^^^^^1 

*\ 

a. 

n 

^^^^^^^1 

>» 

<D 

<D 

^^^^^^^1 

c 

« 

(0 

^^^^^^^1 

rt 

to 

^^^1 

& 

CO 

a 

^^^^^^^B 

o 

•H 

^^^1 

o 

O 

^^^^^^^^ 

■p 

CU 

^^^^^^^^ 

CO 

CO 

^^^^^^^^ 

0) 

■ 

CQ 

(0 

m 

9) 

1 

PQ 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


GIFT  OF 

John  C.  Clendenin 


BEST'S  SPECIAL 
REPORT 


UPON  THE 


San  Francisco 
Losses  and 
Settlements 

OF  THE 

Two  hundred  and  forty-three 
institutions  involved  in  the 

CONFLAGRATION  OF 
APRIL  18-21,  1906 

Price  One  Dollar 


ALFRED  M.  BEST  COMPANY 

Incorporated    1899 

Best  Building         75  Fulton  Street 
New  York  City 


BESTS  SPECIAL 
REPORT 


UPON  THE 


San  Francisco 
Losses  and 
Settlements 


of  the  Two  Hundred  and  Forty-three  Insti- 
tutions involved  in  the 

CONFLAGRATION  OF  APRIL  18-21,  1906 


ALFRED  M.  BEST  COMPANY.  Inc. 
(1899) 

Best  Building  75  Fulton  Street 

New  York  City 


Copyrighted  1907 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.  J 


SAN   FRANCISCO   CONFLAGRATION 
APRIL    18-21,   1906 

Losses  Sustained  by  the  Various  Companies  and  the 
Manner  of  Their  Settlement 

In  this  report  we  deal  only  with  the  effect 
upon  the  various  insurance  companies  of 
the  losses  sustained  in  the  great  San  Fran- 
cisco conflagration  of  April  18-21,  1906,  and 
the  manner  in  which  they  met  these  obliga- 
tions. Taken  as  a  whole,  the  companies 
paid  their  losses  remarkably  well,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  the  fact  that  there  were  many 
companies  which,  while  able  to  pay  in  full, 
met  their  creditors  in  an  arbitrary  and  tech- 
nical spirit,  making  use  of  the  misfortune  of 
those  with  whom  they  dealt  to  exact  com- 
promise settlements. 

The  methods  of  the  various  companies  in 
settling  their  conflagration  losses  appear  to 
us  of  the  first  importance  to  buyers  of  in- 
surance policies.  Insurance  is  pre-eminently 
a  business  founded  upon  good  faith,  and  a 
policy  to  be  worth  anything  must  be  good 
under  any  and  all  circumstances.  An  insur- 
ance company  which  meets  its  obligations 
under  ordinary  conditions,  but  which  in  the 
face  of  extraordinary  losses  endeavors  in 
every  way  to  evade  its  just  obligations,  is  not 
the  company  which  the  thoughtful  and  con- 
servative business  man  will  choose  to  in- 
demnify him  against  loss.  Business  men 
should  remember  that  in  practically  all  the 
large  cities  of .  this  country  the  conflagra- 
tion hazard  is  a  real  and  imminent  one.  The 
policy-holder  in  any  one  of  a  score  of  cities 
may  find  himself  to-morrow  in  the  predica- 
ment of  the  business  men  of  San  Francisco 
after  the  great  conflagration  there.  From  a 
keen  realization  of  this  fact,  coupled  with 
the  normal  American  distaste  for  repudia- 
tion of  obligations,  undoubtedly  springs  the 
equally  keen  interest  displayed  by  business 
men  in  the  San  Francisco  settlements.  We 
are  convinced  that  those  companies  which 
could  have  paid,  but  instead  evaded  their 
obligations  in  whole  or  in  part,  will  find 
that    their    actioii_^A^li   not;   be    forgotten    by 


4        BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

that  great  insuring  public  from  which  their 
support  is  drawn. 

Realizing  the  importance  of  the  subject, 
we  have  spared  no  effort  to  make  this  report 
complete  and  accurate.  As  soon  as  the  active 
work  of  adjusting  began  at  San  Francisco, 
we  dispatched  a  representative  to  that  city, 
who  spent  the  ensuing  six  months  in  gather- 
ing information  from  all  available  sources 
regarding  the  settlements  made  by  the  vari- 
ous companies,  investigating  particular  in- 
stances referred  to  him  by  this  office  in  order 
that  full  justrce  might  be  done,  both  to  the 
concerns  reported  upon  and  to  our  subscri- 
bers. A  great  deal  of  valuable  information 
was  voluntarily  forwarded  to  us  by  business 
houses  and  insurance  men  throughout  the 
country,  who  knew  of  our  intention  to  pre- 
pare a  complete  report  covering  the  whole 
subject  of  the  settlements.  More  important 
still  is  the  mass  of  detailed  information  col- 
lected by  us  through  correspondence  with 
San  Francisco  business  concerns,  which  re- 
ported to  us  the  settlement  made  with  and 
the  treatment  received  from  each  of  the  com- 
panies in  which  they  were  interested.  These 
returns  were  carefully  tabulated  at  this  office 
and  filed  for  future  reference.  Reports  of 
discourtesy  or  arbitrary  treatment  were  in- 
vestigated thoroughly. 

As  a  final  check  upon  the  accuracy  of  the 
data  secured  through  these  various  channels, 
we  obtained  from  the  companies  themselves 
reports   showing  the   following,  items : 

1.  Total   number  ot   claims  filed. 

2.  Gross   loss. 

3.  Reinsurance   recoverable. 

4.  Salvage,    cash    discounts    and    all    other 

deductions. 

5.  Net  loss. 

6.  Net  amount  of  insurance  involved. 

The  compilation  and  editing  of  these  re- 
turns required  great  patience  and  labor.  The 
method  adopted  for  showing  the  comparative 
rank  of  the  companies  with  regard  to  their 
settlements  is  fully  explained  later  in  this 
report.  We  will  say  here,  however,  that  to  a 
remarkable  extent  the  figures  furnished  to  us 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


by  the  companies  themselves  bear  out  and 
verify  the  reports  concerning  them  filed  with 
us  and  summarized   herein. 

WE  ARE  PREPARED  TO  SUBSTAN- 
TIATE TO  THE  FULLEST  EXTENT 
EVERY  STATEMENT  CONTAINED  IN 
THIS  REPORT,  FROM  EVIDENCE 
FILED  IN  THIS  OFFICE,  It  is  unfor- 
tunate that  the  facts  require  sharp  criticism 
of  numerous  institutions  whose  reputations 
prior  to  the  San  Francisco  disaster  were  with- 
out blemish,  but  which  justly  earned  the 
condemnation  of  honorable  business  men  by 
their  methods  in  adjusting  and  paying  their 
San  Francisco  losses.  It  is  possible  that  at- 
tempts will  be  made  to  impugn  our  accuracy. 
We  can  only  say  that  we  have  been  quite 
as  careful  to  do  justice  to  the  companies  as 
to  those  who  will  use  this  report  as  a  guide 
to  the  selection  of  future  insurance ;  that  we 
have  delayed  its  publication  until  we  could 
weigh  carefully  the  evidence  in  each  case ; 
that  the  reports  herein  are  very  conservative, 
considering  the  evidence  accumulated;  and 
that,  barring  possible  typographical  mistakes, 
they  are  absolutely  reliable. 

The  net  losses  shown  in  the  tables  forming  a 
part  of  this  report  total  $175,490,661  with 
the  figures  of  several  companies  missing.  A 
tabulation  made  by  us  of  the  losses  of  the 
thirty-five  large  companies  which  adjusted 
through  the  "Committee  of  Five,"  which 
companies  as  a  class  settled  liberally  and 
fairly,  showed  that  the  salvage,  cash  dis- 
counts, etc.,  of  those  companies  amounted  to 
approximately  10  per  cent,  of  the  net  loss. 
On  the  same  basis  of  calculation,  the  losses 
herein  reported  represent  claims  of  about 
$200,000,000.  In  addition,  there  was  a  large 
amount  of  reinsurance  in  foreign  companies 
writing  in  this  country  only  through  reinsur- 
ance treaties.  Those  companies  have  made 
no  report  to  us  of  their  losses,  but,  estimat- 
ing from  the  best  data  obtainable,  we  be- 
lieve that  among  them  they  have  lost  not 
less  than  $20,000,000  to  $25,000,000.  This 
would  make  a  total  loss  to  insurance  insti- 
tutions throughout  the  world  of  from  $226,- 


6        BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

000,000  to  $225,000,000.  It  is  probable  that 
the  sound  value  of  the  property  represented 
by  this  loss  was  nearly  or  quite  $100,000,000 
greater  than  the  last  named  figure,  so  that 
this  conflagration  takes  rank  as  the  largest 
in  history  in  point  of  values  destroyed.  This 
loss  fell  upon  243  insurance  institutions,  plus 
those  foreign  companies  (twenty  or  more  in 
number)  which  have  made  no  report  to  us. 
Only  III  companies  were  licensed  to  write 
fire  insurance  in  California  at  the  time  of 
the  disaster.  All  other  companies  sustained 
their  losses  through  re-insurance  of  admitted 
companies,  or  through  having  written  a  mod- 
erate amount  of  insurance  in  San  Francisco 
though  not  admitted  to  California.  An  anal- 
ysis of  the  institutions  whose  figures  appear 
in  our  tables  shows  that  they  were  divided  as 
follows: 

California   stock    companies 3 

Stock  companies  of  other  States  admitted 

to    California    73 

Stock   companies   of  other   States   not   ad- 
mitted  to  California    55 

Foreign  stock  companies  admitted  to  Cali- 
fornia    35 

Foreign   stock  companies  not  admitted   to 

California    48 

"Underwriters'    Agencies."    whose    policies 
were    guaranteed    by    some    company 

admitted     to  California   7 

Inter-Insurance    associations    5 

Mutual    companies    10 

Lloyds   associations    7 

Total 243 

FAILURES   AND   RETIREMENTS. 

The  actual  failures  and  retirements  due  to 
the  fire  were  as  follows  • 

AMERICAN  INSURANCE  CO..  Boston, 
Mass. — Reinsured  April  26,  1906.  in  Fire- 
men's, of  Newark. 

AMERICAN     FIRE     INSURANCE    CO.. 

Philadelphia.  Pa. — Reinsured  all  outstanding 
risks  in  Commercial  Union  Assurance  Co.,  of 
London,   April    25,    1906.     Continued   writing 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


business  until  July  2,  1906,  on  which  date 
the  business  written  betv/een  April  25  and 
July  2,  1906,  was  reinsured  in  the  Sprinp^ 
Garden  Insurance  Co.,  of  Philadelphia;  Paci- 
fic Insurance  Co.,  of  New  York,  and  the  Stuy- 
vesant  Insurance  Co.,  of  New  York,  all  con- 
trolled or  managed  by  J.  S.  Frelinghuysen, 
who  had  also  operated  the  American  Fire  of 
Philadelphia. 

ASSURANCE  COMPANY  OF  AMER- 
ICA, New  York. — Reinsured  outstanding 
business  in  National  Fire  Insurance  Com- 
pany, Hartford,  February  14,  1907.  May  re- 
sume. 

ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM  FIRE  IN- 
SURANCE CO.,  Atlanta,  Ga.— Reinsured 
June  27,  1906,  in  Prudential,  of  Tazewell,  Va. 
On  December  4,  1906,  A.  C.  Sexton  appointed 
temporary  receiver  for  Alabama.  December 
5,  1906,  J.  M.  Seaton  appointed  receiver  for 
Georgia.  December  6,  1906,  E.  A.  Catlin 
appointed  receiver  for  Virginia. 

COLONIAL  FIRE  INSURANCE  CO., 
Washingtojij  D,  C. — In  voluntary  liquidation. 
Outstanding  risks  have  not  been  reinsured. 

DUTCHESS  INSURANCE  CO..  Pough- 
keepsie,  N.  Y. — Stopped  active  business:.  A 
new  company  was  organized  to  reinsure  the 
business  of  the  old  company,  under  the  title 
"Duchess  Fire  Insurance  Co." 

FEDERAL     INSURANCE     CO.,     Jersey 

City,  N.  J. — Reinsured  outstanding  fire  busi- 
ness in  National  Fire  Insurance  Company, 
Hartford,  Conn  ,  February  14,  1907.  May 
resume.  Continues  writing  marine  business  as 
heretofore. 

GERMAN  INSURANCE  CO..  Freeport. 
111. — Company  reinsured  all  of  its  outstanding 
risks  in  the  Royal  Insurance  Company,  of 
Liverpool,  from  noon,  November  15,  1906 
Chicago  Title  and  T/*-ust  Co.  appointed  re- 
ceiver Nov    19.   1906 

GERMAN      NATIONAL      INSURANCE 
CO..    Chicago,    111. — Company     reinsured     its' 
outstanding   risks    in    the    Dubuque    Fire   and 


8        BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

Marine  Insurance  Company,  Dubuque,  Iowa, 
November  19,  1906.  State  Bank  of  Chicago 
appointed  receiver  Nov.  20,   1906. 

HOME  FIRE  &  MARINE  INSURANCE 
CO.,  San  Francisco. — Is  being  wound  up.  Its 
outstanding  rislcs  have  not  been   reinsured. 

NEW  YORK  FIRE  INSURANCE  CO., 
New  York. — All  outstanding  risks  reinsured 
May  4,  1906,  in  the  New  Hampshire  Fire  In- 
surance Co. 

NORTH  GERMAN  FIRE  INSURANCE 
CO.,  Hamburg,  Germany. — Has  denied  habil- 
ity  for  San  Francisco  losses  and  withdrawn 
from   this   country. 

NORTH  GERMAN  FIRE  INSURANCE 
CO.,  New  York. — All  outstanding  risks  re- 
insured June  II,  1906,  in  the  Cosmopolitan 
Fire  Insurance  Co.,  a  new  company  formed 
for  that  purpose.  On  November  8,  1906,  N. 
A.  Elsberg,  New  York,  was  appointed  re- 
ceiver. 

PRUDENTIAL  FIRE  INSURANCE  CO.. 
Tazewell,  Va. — E.  A.  Catlin  appointed  re- 
ceiver December  6,  1906.  Another  receiver 
appointed  in  Georgia,  where  company  main- 
tained it  principal  office. 

SECURITY  FIRE  INSURANCE  CO., 
Baltimore,  Md. — All  outstanding  risks  rein- 
sured early  in  June  in  the  New  Jersey  Fire 
Insurance  Co.,  a  new  company  formed  by  the 
same  interests  for  that  purpose  On  June  20, 
T906,  Geo.  R.  Willis,  of  Baltimore,  was  ap- 
pointed  receiver  of  the   company. 

TRADERS*  INSURANCE  CO.,  Chicago, 
111. — Byron  L.  Smith  appointed  receiver  May 
5,  1906.  He  retired  and  was  succeeded  by 
the  State  Bank  of  Chicago.  The  company's 
outstanding  risks  were  not  reinsured. 

TRANSATLANTIC  FIRE  INSURANCE 
CO.,  Hamburg,  Germany. — This  company  de- 
nied liability  for  its  San  Francisco  losses,  and 
ceased  business  in  this  country 

The  following  companies  reinsured,  but 
have  resumed  or  will  resume  active  business 

FIREMAN'S  FUND  INSURANCE  Cp.. 
San    Francisco.— AH    outstanding    risks    rein- 


BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.        0 

sured  in  the  Firemen  s  Fund  Insurance  Cor- 
poration, a  new  company  organized  for  that 
purpose,  as  of  April  i8,  1906.  This  company 
will  soon  resume. 

MERCANTILE  FIRE  AND  MARINE 
INSURANCE  CO.,  Boston,  Mass.— All  out- 
standing risks  reinsured  in  the  American 
Central  Insurance  Company,  of  St.  Louis, 
Mo.,  April  26,  1906,  but  company  continued 
in   business   without    interruption. 

UNITED  STATES  FIRE  INSURANCE 
CO.,  New  York. — Reinsured  April  26,  1906, 
in  Westchester  Fire,  of  New  York,  has  re- 
sumed business. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  only  the  capi- 
tal and  net  surplus  of  an  insurance  company 
are  available  for  payment  of  claims,  it  is 
remarkable  that  a  greater  number  of  failures 
did  not  occur  The  sworn  statements  of 
their  condition  filed  by  76  domestic  fire  insurance 
companies  licensed  in  California  at  the  time 
of  the  conflagration  (which  were  those  most 
heavily  involved),  showing  their  net  resources 
on  December  31,  1905,  indicate  that  no  less 
than  44  domestic  companies  were  insolvent  im- 
mediately after  the  fire  upon  the  basis  of  the  net 
loss  which  they  now  admit.  The  small  num- 
ber of  failures,  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  Insurance  Commissioners  of  various 
States  assumed  the  heavy  responsibility  of 
permitting  companies  whose  insolvency  was 
a  matter  of  common  knowledge  to  continue 
in  business  unmolested,  upon  the  excuse  that 
as  they  denied  liability  for  the  San  Fran- 
cisco claims,  it  was  impossible  to  estimate 
their  condition.  Many  of  these  companies 
fortunately  made  sufficient  profit  during  the 
last  eight  months  of  th.  year  to  enable  them 
to  show  a  solvent  condition  when  filing  their 
statements  as  of  December  31,  1906.  If  there 
had  been  another  severe  fire  loss,  however, 
the  result  could  not  have  failed  to  be  disas- 
trous, and  the  insurance  officials,  who,  in- 
stead of  rigidly  enforcing  the  laws,  practi- 
cally suspended  their  operations  with  regard 
to  certain  companies  under  their  jurisdiction, 
would  have  been  in  a  most  embarrassing  posi- 


10       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

tion.  As  it  turned  out,  no  great  harm  was 
done  to  the  majority  of  the  policy-holders 
of  the  insolvent  companies  which  were  thus 
permitted  to  continue  in  business;  but  their 
San  Francisco  creditors  were  in  many  in- 
stances induced  to  settle  for  less  than  the 
companies  were  able  to  pay  This  would 
have  been  impossible  had  the  insurance  au- 
thorities of  the  various  States  promptly  and 
thoroup^hly  investigated  the  condition  of  con- 
cerns whose  solvency  was  open  to  question. 
This  should  have  been  done,  so  that  credi- 
tors receiving  offers  of  compromise  settle- 
ments could  have  had  some  authoritative  in- 
formation upon  which  to  base  their  accept- 
ance or  declination  of  such  offers.  It  was  also 
unfair  to  the  solvent  companies  to  permit  insol- 
vent ones  to  compete  with  them.  A  glar- 
ing dlustration  of  injury  to  loss  claimants 
through  this  lack  of  prompt  action  by  the 
msurance  oflficials  is  the  American  Insurance 
Company  of  Boston,  Mass.,  which  succeeded 
in  settling  practically  all  of  its  claims  at  40 
per  cent.,  and  which  is  now  being  sued  by 
numerous  loss  claimants  who  were  induced 
to  settle  on  that  basis  by  representations  that 
it  could  not  pay  more,  which  now  appear  to 
be  falso.  The  small  number  of  failures  was 
also  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  $37,056,528  of 
new  capital  and  surplus  have  found  their 
way  into  the  insurance  business  since  the 
fire,  as  shown  by  the  following  tabulation, 
which,  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  includes 
some  companies  which  w^ere  not  involved 
at  San  Francisco : 

COMPANIES    ALREADY    IN    BUSINESS. 

New  Capital     New  Surplus 
Company.  Subscribed.       Subscribed. 

Alliance.    Phila    $     750,ooo 

American    Central     $     1,000,000  1,000,000 

British    America,    Toronto 550.000  i37-500 

California    1,650,000 

Calumet,  Chicago  500,000 

Citizens,  St.  Louis   35.000 

Commercial    Fire,    Houston..     :::5.ooo 

Concordia,  Milwaukee 100.000  50.000 

Connecticut  Fire 500.000  500,000 

Delaware,  Phila 118.850  118.850 

Eagle  Fire,  New  York     ..    ..      (a)6oo,ooo       

Federal.  Jersey  City 500,000  100,000 

Fire   Association,    Phila 250,000  1,250,000 


BESTS    SAM    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       11 

New  Capital  New  Surplus 

Company.                                             Subscnbed.  Subscribed. 

Fireman's  Fund,  S.  F $600,000       

Franklin   Fire,   Phila 300,000  $300,000 

'''Freelioldcrs,  Tapeka,  Kan...  46,900       

German    Fne,   Peoria    100,000 

Girard  F.  &  .M.,  Phila 200,000  400,000 

Hamilton  I-'ire,  New  York. ...  (b)  100,005       - — 

Hanover,  New  York         ....        500,000  250,000 

Hartford    Fire    750,000  3,000,000 

*Imperial  Fire,  Denver,  Colo..    40,000 

*Ins.    Co.   of   the   State   of   111.         50,000  50,000 

Ins.  Co.  State  of  Pa (a)200,ooo       

Jefferson  Fire,  Phila 75,ooo 

Mercantile  F.  &  M.,   Boston:. 130,000 

^Michigan  Commer'l,  Lansing,        100,000  70,000 

Michigan  F.  &  M 200,000 

^Milwaukee  German   50,000  10,000 

Milwaukee  Fire  ■ 150,000 

Milwaukee    Mechanics,    Wis..          300,000  300,000 

National    Union,    Pittsburg...     1,050,000 

Niagara,  New  York   250.000  750,000 

*North  State,  Greensboro,  N.C.        125,000  103,333 

Northwestern    F   &    M.,    Mpls.        100,000  75,ooo 

Northwestern   National    400,000       ■ 

Orient,   Hartford    83,000 

Pelican,  New  York 350,000 

Pennsylvania   Fire    350,000  1,050,000 

Phenix,  Brooklyn 500,000  1,000,000 

Prudential   Fire,   W.   Va.(c)    .     (0)75,000  (c)8o,ooo 

Queen  City,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.       300,000  225,000 

Rochester  German   300,000  520,000 

Seattle  F.  8c  M.,  Seattle,  Wash.       200,000  50,000 

Seaboard  F.  &  M.,  Galveston.     30.000 

Security,  New  Haven 300.000 

Shawnee  Fire,  Topeka,   Kan..         100,000  100,000 

*Southern  Fire,  Lynchburg,  Va.         9i,54S  9i,S45 

Teutonia,  New  Orleans .  125,000 

United  Firemen's,  Phila 100,000  100,000 

Washington   Fire,  Seattle 200,000  100,000, 

Western    Assurance,   Toronto.     1,000,000  250,000 

*Winona  Fire  40.Q00  ■  ■■ 

Totals    $10,947,300  $17,634,228 

♦No  loss  at  San   Francisco, 
(a) — Subsequently  transferred  to  surplus. 
(b) — $50,001   subsequently  transferred  to  surplus. 
(c) — Now  in  hands  of  receiver. 

NEW  COMPANIES. 
(None  involved  at  San  Francisco,  but  included  to 
show  the  stimulating  rather  than   depressing   effect 

of  the  conflagration  upon  investments  in  insurance 
stocks.) 

American  Druggists  Fire,  Cin- 
cinnati           $100,000        

Atlantic  Fire,  Raleigh,  N.  C..          125,000  $25,000 

Cosmopolitan  Fire 300,000  150,00'D 

Dixie  Fire,  'Greensboro,  N  C. .        500,000  250,000 

Dutchess  Fire,  Poughkeepsie. .        200,000        

Fidelity  Fire,   N    Y         1,000,000  1,500,000 

Firemen's  Fund  Ins.  Corp,  S.F      1,000,000  i,ooo,ooc 


12       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


Company. 
Florida  Home,  Marianna,  Fla 
German    Union,    P>altimo.re 
Illinois   Bankers,   Mt.   Vernon 
Illinois   National,  Springfield 
New  England  Fire,  Providence 
New  Jersey  Fire,  Camden,  N  J. 

Old    Colony,   Boston 

Rhode    Island,    Providence. 
West  Virginia  Fire,  Charleston 


New  Capital 
Subscribed. 

$100,000 
200,000 
100,000 
100,000 
:        100,000 
200,000 
400,000 
300,000 
100,000 

S> 

^w  Surplus 
jbscribed. 

$10,000 

100,000 

25,000 

50,000 

50,000 

200,00") 

300,000 

Totals      $4,825,000      $3,660,000 

Grand  Totals         $15,772,300    $21,284,228 

Policy-holders  should  remember  that  stock-hold- 
ers of  insurance  companies  have  had  a  hard  blow, 
and  we  doubt  very  much  that  they  would,  or,  in  fact, 
could,  duplicate  in  the  near  future  the  remarkable 
record  shown  above  if  another  large  fire  should 
make  further  contributions  necessary  as  the  alterna- 
tive of  retirement  This  makes  great  care  in  the 
selection  of  insurance  necessary  at  this  time. 

ANALYSIS    OF    REASONS    ADVANCED 
FOR  NON-PAYMENT  IN   FULL. 

There  cannot  be  any  just  criticism  of  those 
companies  which  did  not  pay  their  obliga- 
tions in  full  because  of  sheer  inability  It 
becomes  necessary,  however,  to  analyze  rather 
closely  the  arguments  advanced  by  various 
companies  which  were  entirely  able  to  pay 
in  full  but  failed  to  do  so.  In  the  days  im- 
mediately following  the  disaster,  it  was  gen- 
erally believed  that  the  damage  by  earth- 
quake was  so  great  that  the  companies  would 
be  justified  in  insisting  upon  large  discounts 
from  the  face  of  their  policies  Investiga- 
tion quickly  dispelled  this  belief  Mr  S  Al- 
bert Reed,  Consulting  Engineer  of  the  "Com- 
mittee of  Twenty"  of  the  National  Board  of 
Fire  Underwriters,  which  committee  has  con- 
sidered ever  since  the  Baltimore  fire  the  sub- 
ject of  the  conflagration  hazard  in  the  large 
cities  of  the  United  States,  visited  San  Fran- 
cisco very  soon  after  the  disaster  and  made 
a  report  in  which  he  stated  in  part: 
""'The  actual  damage,  though  appalling  to 
those  who  experienced  the  shock,  was  not, 
as  a  general  rule,  structurally  serious  as  far 
as  appearance  went  Apart  from  buildings 
having  ponderon?  architectural  attachments, 
particularly    the    City    Hall,    where    the    dam- 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       13 

age  was  great  and  spectacular,  the  apparent 
structural  injury  was  mainly  to  tall  chimneys, 
church  towers  and  unbraced  brick  gables, 
copings  and  projections.  Interior  plaster,  til- 
ing and  adhesively  applied  decorations  were 
quite  generally  wrecked.  House  chimneys 
above  roofs  fell  extensively.  Actual  collapses 
were  mainly  confined  to  flimsy,  frame  struc- 
tures. Observation  of  the  unburned  western 
addition  and  also  of  photographs  taken  be- 
tween the  earthquake  and  the  fire  make  it 
clear  that  San  Francisco  was  far  from  being 
destroyed  by  the  earthquake,  and  that  out- 
side of  small  districts  in  the  flats  it  was  the 
exception  that  a  building  was  rendered  unin- 
habitable." 

For  the  information  of  business  men  it 
should  be  stated  that  earthquake  damage 
could  properly  be  urged  as  a  defence  to  a 
claim  only  under  the  following  conditions: 

I  Where  the  policy  contained  a  clause  distinctly 
providing  that  the  company  should  not  be  liable 
for  fire  damage  resulting  directly  or  indirectly 
from  earthquake. 

2.  Where  a  "material  portion"  of  the  in- 
sured building  had  fallen  from  any  cause  ex- 
cept fire,  thus  making  the  policy  void. 

Few  policies  contained  such  clauses,  and  it  has 
been  conclusively  proved  that  few  of  the  build- 
ings destroyed  were  sufficiently  damaged  to 
bring  them  within  the  application  of  the  "fallen 
building"  clause  The  falling  of  a  chimney 
or  plastering  cannot  be  considered  as  the 
falling  of  a  substantial  or  material  part  of  a 
building.  The  original  intent  of  this  clause 
was  to  provide  against  claims  arising  from  the 
collapse  of  'buildings  because  of  structural  weak" 
ness,  and  the  Courts  discriminate  between  build- 
ings which  fall  because  of  some  inherent  weak- 
ness and  those  which  are  demolished  by  some 
outside  agency. 

Most  of  the  companies  which  attempted  to 
enforce  large  arbitrary  deductions  from  the 
claims  against  them,  however,  had  neither  an 
earthquake  clause  nor  specific  evidence  of  earth- 
quake damage  to  urge  as  a  defence,  but  insisted 
that  the  "general  conditions"  entitled  them  to 
the  discounts  demanded  ranging  as  high  as  30 


14       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO     REPORT. 

per  cent.  We  are  unable  to  believe  that  there 
was  any  justification  for  this  course,  after  a  care- 
ful review  of  all  the  conditions  and  the  evidence 
secured  from  many  different  sources.  If  the  peo- 
ple of  San  Francisco  had  recovered  the  whole 
amount  of  the  insurance  on  the  destroyed  prop- 
erty— approximately  $225,000,000 — tiiey  would 
still  be  out  of  pocket  $100,000,000.  The  injus- 
tice of  attempting  to  secure  discounts  from  AD- 
JUSTED CLAIMS  is,  therefore,  at  once  ap- 
parent. In  the  adjustment,  all  the  questions 
bearing  upon  the  companies'  liability  were 
supposedly  considered,  among  them  deprecia- 
tion from  all  causes,  including  damage,  if  any, 
by  the  earthquake  before  the  fire  finally  de- 
stroyed the  property. 

The  fact  that,  as  a  whole,  the  destroyed  prop- 
erty was  greatly  under-insured,  disposes  also  of 
the  allegation  that  many  claims  were  "padded." 
With  total  values  nearly  50  per  cent,  in  excess 
of  insurance,  on  .the  average  padding  was  im- 
possible. 

THE  VITAL  POINT  OF  THE  WHOLE 
MATTER  IS  THAT  THE  COMPANIES 
WHICH  EXACTED  ARBITRARY  DIS- 
COUNTS SECURED  THESE  DISCOUNTS 
NOT  NECESSARILY  FROM  THE  FACE 
OF  THEIR  POLICIES,  BUT  FROM  THE 
FACE  OF  THE  CLAIMS  AFTER  THEY 
WERE  ADJUSTED  AND  THE  ADJUST- 
MENT ACCEPTED  BY  REPUTABLE 
COMPANIES. 

To  sum  up.  any  wholesale  deduction  from  the 
face  of  the  claims  as  adjusted  was  unjustifiable. 
Such  deductions  were  possible  because  of  the 
pressing  necessities  of  the  claimants  and  the 
technical  character  of  the  insurance  contract, 
which  acted  to  deter  creditors  from  suing.  It 
is  preposterous  to  assume  that  individual  com- 
panies involved  for  millions  of  dollars  paid  their 
claims  in  full  as  adjusted  "for  the  advertise- 
ment" or  from  any  other  motive  than  an  im- 
pelling sense  of  justice,  and  the  companies 
which  exacted  arbitrary  discounts  were  with- 
out legal  or  moral  justification,  in  the  great 
majority   of  instances. 

New  York.  Febnmry  25.  1907. 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       15 

{See  pages  48  to  6,J  for  details  nj  loss  ) 

HOW  THE  COMPANIES  SETTLED 

Percentages  used  in  comments  are  of  the  adjusted 
claims. 

AACHEN  AND  MUNICH,  AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 
GERMANY: 

Paid  as  low  as  75  per  cent  ;  numerous  settle- 
ments reported  at  85  per  cent  and  90  per  cent;  in 
a  few  cases  95  per  cent  and  (rarely)  more  Some 
complaints  of  arbitrary  treatment  Was  able  to 
pay  in  full 
AETNA.    HARTFORD.    CONN.: 

Paid  all  claims  in  full  upon  adjustment,  without 
even  cash  discount  Treatment  of  claimants  cour- 
teous and  entirely  satisfactory  Only  four  other 
companies  settled  on  this  basis,  except  a  few 
whose  losses  were  nommal 
AGRICULTURAL.    WATERTOWN.    N.    Y.: 

Bulk    of    settlements    111    full,     less    2    per    cent 
for    cash ,    m    a    few    instances    5    per    cent       Some 
settlements  at  much  heavier  discounts 
ALLEGHENY.    ALLEGHENY,    PA.: 

Only  one  claim,  not  paid,  but  company  states 
will  be  settled  in  full 
ALLIANCE  ASSURANCE.  LONDON.  ENG.: 
At  first  denied  liability  under  strong  earthquake 
clause;  later  ofifered  50  per  cent,  or  75  per  cent., 
according  to  location  m  damaged  area.  Many  suits 
instituted.  Reported  that  policies  under  $500  were 
settled  m  full.     Financially  able  to  pay  m  full. 

ALLIANCE,    PHILADELPHIA.    PA.: 

Nearly  all   settlement    in    full,   less  2   per  cent. ;   in 
some  cases  less  5  per  cent.     Treatment  good. 
AMERICAN    CENTRAL.    ST.    LOUIS,    MO.: 
Most  claims  in  full,  less  2  per"  cent,  and  a  few  less 
5    per    cent.      In    some    cases    larger    discounts    re- 
ported.    Treatment  good. 
AMERICAN    FIRE,    PHILADELPHIA,    PA.: 
Settled  nearly  all  claims  at  50  per  cent     Claimed 
inability  to  pay  more.     Treatment  courteous      Set- 
tlements   on    the    whole    satisfactory,    considering 
company's  condition. 
AMERICAN,    BOSTON.    MASS.: 

Offered  40  per  cent.,  alleging  ins:>lvency      Out- 
standing   risks    were    reinsured,    giving    an    appar- 


16       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  4S  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
cntiy  legal  prcicrciicc"  to  return  premium  claim- 
ants over  loss  claimants.  Action  of  the  company 
has  been  marked  by  concealment  and  evasion. 
Suit  now  pending  for  appointment  of  receiver  and 
to  compel  further  payments  to  those  who  settled 
at  40  per  cent,  on  the  strength  of  alleged  false 
representations. 

AMERICAN,    NEWARK,    N.    J.: 

As  a  rule  reported  to  have  paid  in  full,  less  2 
per  cent.;  some  larger  discounts  reported.  Its 
adjusters  in  numerous  instances  gave  drafts  for 
full  amount  of  the  loss,  but  secured  from  the  in- 
sured a  check  representing  a  discount.  The  com- 
pany states  that  this  was  done  without  its  knowl- 
edge or  consent  and  only  in  the  early  stages  of  the 
adjustments;  and  that  in  no  case  did  the  check  so 
received  exceed  2  per  cent,  of  the  claim.  Treat- 
ment, on  the  vi^hole,  good;  a  few  reports  of  arbi- 
trary and  discourteous  treatment  by  adjusters. 

ARMENIA,    PITTSBURG,    PA.: 

Only  a  few  claims.  Reported  to  have  sought 
considerable  discounts.     Able  to  pay  in  full. 

ASSURANCE  COMPANY  OF  AMERICA.  NEW 
YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Demanded  heavy  discounts.  Losses  usually 
settled  at  75  per  cent.  In  some  cases  under  press- 
ure paid  considerably  more.  Company  financially 
able  to  pay  in  full,  though  loss  was  heavy.  Rein- 
sured in  National  of  Hartford,  February,  1907. 
ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM,   ATLANTA,    GA.: 

Record  very  bad.  No  settlements  made.  First 
offer  to  settle,  after  five  months'  delay,  was  25  per 
cent,  in  cash  and  50  per  cent,  in  stock  of  the  com- 
pany at  an  absurd  over-valuation.  The  next  oflfer 
was  25  per  cent,  cash  and  10  per  cent,  in  notes, 
and  later  this  was  made  25  per  cent,  cash  and  15 
per  cent,  in  notes.  All  these  offers  were  rejected 
by  the  creditors.  Ninety  per  cent,  of  the  good 
assets  of  the  Atlanta-Birrriingham  were  turned 
over  by  the  active  managers  to  the  Prudential 
Fire  Insurance  Company  of  West  Virginia,  which 
was  purchased  in  an  effort  to  maintain  the  agency 
organization  of  the  Atlanta-Birmingham.  Later 
both  companies  went  into  the  hands  of  receivers. 
This    is    one    of    the    three    American    companies 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.  17 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
wMch  nia4e  ;io  cfiofi  to  axjjust  tbeijr  claims,  ajad 
paid  nothing  to  their  creditors. 

ATjUAS  ASSURANCE.  LONDON,  ENG: 

J\.  great  majority  of  the  company's  losses  paid 
in  full  with  i  per  cent,  or  2  per  cent,  discount;  in 
some  cases  5  per  cent,  discount.  Only  one  settle- 
ment reported  at  less  than  95  per  cent.  Treat- 
ment uniformly  courteous. 

AUSTIN  FIRE,  AUSTIN,  TEXAS: 

Settlements  reported  range  from  70  per  cent,  to 
100  per  cent.,  the  majority  at  about  75  per  cent. 
Claimants  appear  to  have  realized  that  the  coxn- 
paxjy's  losses  were  very  heavy  in  proportion  to  its 
size;  but  it  could  have  paid  to  full,  though  this 
wxjuld  have  exhausted  its  resources.  Little  com- 
plaint regarding  it  is  made  in  San  Francisco,  des- 
pite the  heavy  discounts.  The  company  states  that 
no  suits  have  been  filed  against  it. 

AUSTRIAN  PLEMENTAR,  VIEIslNA,  AUSTRIA: 

Only  one  loss  ($J,75o);  settled  for  amount 
claimed. 

AUSTRIAN    PHOENIX,    VIENNA,    AUSTRIA.: 

Has  paid  nothing.  Denies  liability,  apparently 
without  the  slightest  excuse.  Record  very  bad. 
No  losses  paid.  After  ten  months  a  compromise 
oflfer  is  reported.  No  definite  information  yet  ob- 
tainable as  to  percentage  claimants  may  expect  to 
realize.    Definite  announcement  expected  shortly. 

BALKAN    NATIONAL,    SOFIA,    BULGARIA.: 

Demanded  large  discounts;  reported  to  have  set- 
tled at  about  80  per  cent.  Small  loss;  should  and 
could  have  paid  in  full. 

BREWERS  EXCHANGE,  KANSAS  CITY,  MO.: 

Settled  in  full;   treatment   entirely   satisfactory. 
BRITISH   AMERICA,  TORONTO,   ONT.: 

In  the  great  majority  of  cases  claims  were  paid 
at  100  per  cent.,  though  some  settlements  are  re- 
ported at  discounts  of  10  per  cent,  or  l$  per  cent. 
Jn  rpany  instances  payment  of  part  of  the  loss  was 
deferred  and  term  drafts  issued.  Practically  all  of 
these  term  drafts  have  matured  and  been  paid. 
No  complaints  reported  to  .us,  the  settlements  hav- 
ing given  general  satisfaction.  Figures  filed  by  the 
company  show  high  average  of  settlements.  Loss 
severe. 


18       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(Sec  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
BRITISH   AMERICAN,   NEW   YORK,   N.   Y.: 
Settlements  of  this  company  similar  to  those  of 
the    British   America  of  Toronto,   but   nearly   all 
paid  in  cash. 

BRITISH     DOMINIONS     INSURANCE     COM- 
PANY, LTD.,  LONDON,  ENG.: 

Endeavored  to  compromise  all  claims;  it  is  pos- 
sible that  they  will  be  adjusted  by  compromise 
without  litigation.  Small  loss;  able  to  pay  in  full. 
No  reason  for  discounts. 

BUFFALO  GERMAN,  BUFFALO,  N.  Y.: 

Compromised  generally  at  from  75  per  cent,  to 
95  per  cent.  Its  treatment  of  claimants  was  un- 
satisfactory. Its  ability  to  pay  in  full  is  unques- 
tioned. 

BULGARIA,  RUSTSCHUK,  BULGARIA: 

Demanded  large  discounts;  reported  to  have 
settled  at  about  80  per  cent.;  small  loss;  should 
and  could  have  paid  in  full. 

CALEDONIAN  AMERICAN,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settlements  ranged  from  75  per  cent,  to  90  per 
cent.,  the  higher  figure  prevailing;  occasional  set- 
tlements at  better  figures;  was  able  to  pay  in  full. 

CALEDONIAN,  EDINBURGH,  SCOTLAND: 

Paid  some  claims  with  small  cash  discount,  but 
in  the  main  settled  at  about  90  per  cent.  No  uni- 
formity of  settlements.  It  is  reported  that  settle- 
ments as  low  as  75  per  cent,  were  made.  Figures 
furnished  'by  the  company  show  low  average  of 
settlements.  Some  claimants  have  complained  that 
settlements  were  unnecessarily  delayed. 

CALIFORNIA,  SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.: 

Settled  all  claims  at  100  per  cent,  without  cash 
discount  in  most,  but  not  all,  cases.  To  liqui- 
date its  losses  seven  assessments  were  paid  by  the 
stockholders  of  the  corporation,  aggregating  $275 
per  share  upon  a  par  value  of  $40.  Its  treatment 
of  policyholders  was  courteous  and  entirely  satis- 
factory. 

CALUMET,  CHICAGO,  ILL.: 

Settled  all  claims  of  which  we  have  any  record 
at  50  per  cent.  To  accomplish  this  a  fund  of 
$500,000  was  raised  by  some  of  the  stockholders  of. 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      19 

(^See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
the  company.  To  the  creditors  was  given  a  guar- 
anty that  if  after  settlement  upon  a  basis  of  50  per 
cent,  any  of  this  fund  remained  it  would  be  dis- 
tributed to  the  creditors  pro  rata.  No  serious 
criticism  has  been  made  by  claimants,  as  they  cor- 
rectly assume  that  the  company  paid  all  its  funds 
would  permit;  in  fact,  it  could  not  have  paid  50 
per  cent,  if  liquidated.  It  was  criticised  outside  of 
San  Francisco  for  lack  of  frankness  regarding  its 
condition. 

CAMDEN,  CAMDEN,  N.  J.: 

Entire  loss  through  reinsurance, 

CENTRAL,  LONDON,  ENG.: 

San  Francisco  correspondent  reports  eflfort 
made  by  the  company  to  settle  at  80  per  cent., 
which  was  declined.  No  definite  information.  We 
have  been  unable  to  obtain  from  the  company  or 
its  United  States  representatives  figures  showing 
its  losses. 

CENTRAL    MFGRS.    MUTUAL,    VAN    WERT, 
OHIO: 

Loss  only  $2,500;  paid  in  full. 

CITIZENS,  ST.  LOUIS,  MO.: 

Settled  generally  in  full  with  discount  of  2  per 
cent,  for  cash.  Treatment  of  claimants  satisfac- 
tory. 

COLOGNE   REINSURANCE,  COLOGNE,  GER- 
MANY: 

Reinsurance  losses  only. 

COLONIAL  ASSURANCE,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settled  some  claims  in  full,  or  with  ordinary 
cash  discount,  but  endeavored  to  compromise 
where  possible.  One  settlement  recorded  at  85 
per  cent. 

COLONIAL    FIRE    &    MARINE    INSURANCE 
COMPANIES,  BAT  AVI  A,  JAVA: 

So  far  as  known,  no  settlements  made;  losses 
comparatively  small.  Claimants  were  met  by  re- 
peated excuses  delaying  legal  action.  These  com- 
panies have  no  deposit  of  funds  in  this  country, 
and  to  enforce  payment  expensive  suits  are  nec- 
essary in  Holland  or  Java. 


20       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  ^f  loss.) 
COLONIAL  FIRE,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C: 

Reinsurance  losses  only;  settled  satisfactorily; 
company  in  voluntary  liquidation. 

COLONIAL     UNDERWRITERS,     HARTFORD, 
CONN.: 

See  National  Fire  of  Hartford,  Conn. 

COLUMBIA,  JERSEY  CITY: 

Losses  nominal;  no  reports  as  to  settlementa. 
COMMERCIAL  FIRE,  HOUSTON,  TEXAS: 

Al    reinsurance  of  Austin  Fire  Ins.  Co. 

COMMERCIAL     UNION    ASSIJRANCE.     LON- 
DON, ENG.: 

At  first  denied  liability,  under  strong  earthquake 
clause,  but  later  paid  50  per  cent,  or  75  per  cent., 
according  to  location  of  risk,  except  in  case  of 
policies  of  $500  or  less,  which  were  settled  in  full. 
Financial  responsibility  unquestioned. 

COMMERCIAL  UNION,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Had     same     earthquake     clause     as     Commercial 
Union  of  London,  and  settled  upon  same  basis. 

COMMONWEALTH,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Losses  small;  company  claims  to  have  paid 
promptly  and  in  full.     No  reports  filed  with  us 

COMPENSATION  AND  GUARANTEE  FUND, 
LONDON,  ENG.: 

Small  loss;  no  payments  reported;  representa- 
tives adopted  policy  of  delay,  while  not  openly 
denying  liability. 

CONCORDIA,  MILWAUKEE,  WIS.: 

Settled  at  arbitrary  discounts  ranging  from  10 
per  cent,  to  25  per  cent;  paid  generally  at  about 
85  per  cent.  In  only  a  few  cases  were  better  set- 
tlements secured  by  claimants.  Could  have  paid 
in  full. 
CONESTOGA  FIRE,  LANCASTER,  PA.: 
Compromised  at  arbitrary  discounts  of  from  5  per 
cent,  to  15  per  cent.  Small  loss;  no  apparent  rea- 
sons for  deductions. 

*'CONFIANCE,"  PARIS,  FRANCE: 

Small  loss,  paid  in  full  promptly  and  without* 
discount 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.     ,21 

{See  pages  48  to  6j  for  details  of  loss  ) 

CONNECTICUT   FIRE.   HARTFORD.  CONN.: 

Paid  in  full,  or  less  t  t^er  cent  or  2  per  ccht  for 
casli      Treatment  of  policyliolfjer^  sati'^factory 

CONTINENTAL.   NEW   YORK,   N    Y 

Paid  all  clnims  in  full  upon  adjustment,  without 
even  cash  discount  Treatment  of  claimants  cour- 
teous and  entirely  satisfactory  Only  four  other 
companies  settled  on  this  basis,  except  a  few  whose 
losses  were  nominal 
DELAWARE.   DOVER,   DEL.: 

Settled  HI  full,  promptly  and  without  cash  dis- 
count Treatment  entirely  satisfactory  Loss 
srhall 

DELAWARE,  PHILADELPHIA.  PA.: 

Effort  made  to  settle  all  claims  at  75  per  cent  ; 
when  ofYcr  was  refused  and  suit  threatened,  set- 
tlements were  made  at  higher  rates,  in  Some  caSes 
exceeding  go  per  cent  A  few  soHlements  rtiade  at 
less  than  75  per  cent  without  any  reason  having 
bfeert  advdhced  for  large  discounts  Considerable 
ci'iticism  of  the  methods  adopted  by  this  cotnpahy 
and  its  attitude  towards  it?  creditc^l-s  Its  losses 
were  heavy,  but  it  was  ;ible  to  pay  in  full,  if  its 
published   =tnfoments   were   correct 

DES  MOINES,  DES  MOINES.  IOWA: 

Attempted  to  comproniicc  claims  and  has  of- 
fered 75  per  cent  and  80  per  cent  One  loss 
known  to  have  been  settled,  however,  at  90  per 
cent  .  another  at  95  per  ceht 

"EL   DIA."  SPAIN: 

Small  loss,  no  information  that  it  has  paid  any 
claims  Claimants  annoyed  by  excuses  delaying 
legal  action  for  many  months,  though  this  com- 
pany did  not  actually  deny  liability  This  was  pos- 
sible because  of  the  extreme  difficulty  of  enforcing 
claims  against  the  company,  it  having  tio  funds 
here  whirh  could  be  attached 

DUTCHESS.  POUGHKEEPSIE.  N.  Y.: 

Settled  practically  all  claims  at  30  per  cent.,  the 
officers  claiming  that  if  the  indebtedness  could  be 
liquidated  at  that  figure  it  could  continue  in  busi- 
ness, but  would  otherwise  go  into  the  hands  of  a 
receiver  It  could  have  paid  more  than  30  per  cent. 
Severely  criticized  for  failure  to  answer  frankly  in- 


22       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss. ) 
quiries    regarding    ils    condition,    and    because   of 
action  of  its  directors  m  reinsuring  in  a  new  com- 
pany controlled  by  themselves,  when  reinsurance 
elsewhere  would  have  left  more  for  creditors. 

DUTCH  UNDERWRITERS,  HOLLAND: 

These  policies  are  now  issued,  in  this  country 
through  Johnson  &  Higgins  and  Weed  &  Kennedy 
Policies  were  formerly  issued  through  McCay  & 
Cortis  Company,  but  they  no  longer  represent 
these  compapies  Some  claims  on  policies  issued 
through  them  arc  still  unpaid;  policy-holders  com- 
plain that  they  could  not  secure  any  satisfaction 
regarding  them  Weed  &  Kennedy  state  that  they 
had  no  conflagration  losses  on  Dutch  Underwrit- 
ers* policies,  and  Johnson  &  Higgins  report  that 
they  have  collected  and  paid  in  full  all  claims  on 
policies  issued  through  them  Our  direct  infor- 
mation   verifies  this 

EAGLE  FIRE  COMPANY,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 
Withdrew  from  California  and  endeavored  to 
compromise  generally  at  75  per  cent.  A  large 
number  of  claims  were  settled  on  that  basis,  but 
a  few  were  paid  on  more  favorable  terms.  Many 
claimants  sued  it  rather  than  accept  75  per  cent 
Its  arbitrary  attitude  caused  much  dissjatisfaction 
and  severe  criticism.  Its  gross  loss,  less  reinsur- 
ance, was  about  $850,000,  and  its  combined  capital 
and  surplus  at  the  time  of  the  fire  about  $700,000 
With  additional  funds  paid  in  soon  after  the  fire, 
it  was  able  to  pay  all  cla*ms  in  full;  no  apparent 
justification  for  large  arbitrary  discounts  exacted. 
Is  now  offering  90  per  cent. 

EASTERN  FIRE,  ATLANTIC  CITY,  N.  J.: 

y^pparently  adopted  attitude  of  trying  to  tire 
claimants  in  order  to  force  compromise.  No  set- 
tlements known  to  have  bean  made  thus  far  on 
direct  policies.  Part  of  loss  through  reinsurance 
of  German  of  Freeport;  not  yet  paid. 

EMPIRE  CITY,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Endeavored  to  compromise  at  75  per  cent.;  fig- 
ures furnished  by  company  indicate  higher  aver- 
age on  settlements.  Complaints  of  arbitrary  and 
discourteous  treatment. 

ENGLISH    AMER.   UNO'S.   HARTFORD: 

See   London  &  Lancashire      Same  settlement. 
EQUITABLE  F.  &  M.,  PROVIDENCE,  R.  L: 
Reinsurance  of  Fireman's  Fund;  settled  in  bulk. 


__      BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORTt      23 

(^See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 

EQUITABLE    FIRE    UNDERWRITERS,    CHI- 
CAGO. ILL.: 

A  "wildcat"  Lloyds  concern,  not  known  to  have 
settled  the  small  loss  ($2,000)  reported  to  us. 

EQUITY,  TORONTO,  ONT.: 

Offered  small  percentage  in  compromise  settle* 
ment  of  claims.  Able  to  pay  in  full.  Loss  small. 
One  large  claim  paid  at  gz^k  per  cent. 

EUREKA     FIRE    &     MARINE.    CINCINNATI, 
OHIO: 

Reinsurance  only;  states  ihat  it  has  settled  or 
will  settle  on  same  basis  as  original  company. 

"EUROPA,"  BERLIN.  GERMANY: 

Two  small  losses;  settled  promptly  and  in  full 
without  discount. 

EUROPEAN   UNDERWRITERS,   LONDON, 
ENG.: 

An  aggregation  of  twelve  companies  issuing  a 
single  policy.  One  company,  the  Austrian  Phoe- 
nix of  Vienna,  denied  liability  under  these  poli- 
cies, as  it  did  under  its  direct  policies.  (See  item 
elsewhere.)  The  other  companies  appear  to  have 
settled  promptly  and  liberally.  One  small  claim 
was  contested  because  of  alleged  material  misrep- 
resentations in  the  application. 

EXCESS  INSURANCE  COMPANY.  LTD..  LON- 
DON,  ENG.: 

No  direct   policies;   reinsurance   only. 

FACTORS,    MEMPHIS.    TENN.: 

Only  one  loss;  settled  on  compromise  basis  ac- 
cepted by  the  assured  from  other  companies  of 
like  standing,  in  preference  to  litigation! 

FACTORY    MUTUAL,   CLEVELAND,    OHIO: 

Small  loss;  no  report  as  to  settlement. 
FARMERS  &  MERCHANTS,    LINCOLN,   NEB.: 

One  loss  reported,  which  was  settled  at  90  per 
cent,  of  adjustment. 

FEDERAL,  JERSEY  CITY,  N.  J.: 

A  number  of  claims  paid  at  discounts  of  2  per 
cent,  to  5  per  cent;  some  others  at  discounts  of  10 
per  cent.    General  average  of  settlements  as  indi- 


2i       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  Images  48  to  63  tor  details  of  loss.) 
catcd  by  figures  furnislicd  by  the  company  to  us 
IS   low       Able   to   pay    in    full      Reinsured   in    Na- 
tiojial  of  Hartford.  February,   1907 

FEDERAL    LLOYDS,    CHICAGO,    ILL.: 

Compromised  claims  at  from  75  per  cent,  to  95 
per  cent.;  average  a  little  over  80  per  ceijt.  of 
amount  claimed      Able  to  pay  in  full. 

"FIDELITAS,"   BELGIUM: 

Paid   its   few   losses   in   full. 
FIDELITY  UNDERWRITERS,  CHICAGO,  ILL.: 

A  "wildcat"  Lloyds;  no  settlement  reported 

FIRE    ASSOCIATION,    PHILADELPHIA,    PA.: 

Most  claims  paid  at  discounts  of  5  per  cent  to 
15  per  cent.  A  few  claims  paid  at  larger  discounts. 
Its  earlier  efforts  to  settle  at  75  pc/  cent,  caused 
considerable  criticism.  A  strong  company,  and 
able  to  pay  in  full. 

FIREMAN'S  FUND,  SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.: 
The  company  was  made  insolvent  by  the  fire  and 
settled  with  creditors  by  an  agreement  to  pay  in 
instalments,  50  per  cent,  in  cash,  the  balance 
in  stock  of  the  company,  to  be  taken  at  a  valuation 
of  $500  per  share.  Settlement  was  accepted  by 
practically  all  of  the  claimants.  The  stock  taken 
in  part  payment  at  $500  per  share  will  be  worth 
at  least  $150  per  share  after  the  readjustment  of 
the  company's  finances;  so  that  the  settlemcjit  is 
practically  on  a  65  per  cent,  basis,  plus  any  future 
profits  which  may  be  derived  by  the  cU>irrLants 
from  their  stock  hold  ngs.  Losses  were  very 
heavy,  and  settlement  under  the  circumtances  sat- 
isfactory 

FIREMAN    &    MECHANICS,  MADISON,    IND.: 
Compromised  its  few  claims  at  from  80  per  cent, 
to  90  per  cent      Able  to  pay  in  full 

FIRST    BOHEMIAN,    PRAGUE.    AUSTRIA: 

Only  two  direct  losses;  reported  paid  in  full,  less 
discounts  of  1%  and  2%  respectively.  Amount, 
$9,000.  Also  had  $8o,ooo^loss  through  reinsurance; 
reported  settled  in  full 

FRANKLIN    FIRE,    PHILADELPHIA,    PA.: 

Most  claims  settled  at  arbitrary  discount  of  10 
per  cent.;  some  at  discount  of  7V  per  cent.  Other 
losses  are  reported  where  greater  discounts  were 
exacted  without  explanation   furnished  as  to  rea- 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      25 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
son  therefor.     Others  were  paid  at  a  discount  of 
only  2  per  cent    or  5  per  cent.     It  is  claimed  that 
its  funds  did  not  permit  payment  in  full. 

GERMAN    ALLIANCE.    NEW    YORK,    N.    Y.: 

Claims  promptly  adjusted  and  paid  at  a  discount 
of  2  per  cent,  for  cash. 

GERMAN  AMERICAN,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Nearly  all  claims  paid  at  a  discount  of  2  per 
cent,  for  cash.  In  some  cases  a  larger  discount 
taken,  always  for  some  stated  reason,  such  as  loss 
of  books  or  earthquake  damage. 

GERMAN   FIRE,   PEORIA,   ILL.: 

Losses  were  very  heavy,  and  were  settled  on  the 
average  at  50  per  cent,  of  the  amount  claimed. 
Funds  for  the  settlements  were  contributed  by  the 
stockholders.  If  the  company  had  gone  into  liqui- 
dation it  could  not  have  paid  50  per  cent.  Criti- 
cised only  because  of  its  policy  of  concealment. 
The  company  insisted  that  its  loss  could  not  ex- 
ceed $100,000  long  after  it  was  known  to  be  in- 
volved for  over  eight  times  that  amount.  In  the 
main,  policyholders  were  satisfied  with  the  treat- 
ment received. 
GERMANIA,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Endeavored  to  compromise  at  90  per  cent., 
though  some  claims  were  paid  upon  a  more  favor- 
able basis.  Undoubtedly  able  to  pay  in  full.  Fig- 
ures furnished  to  us  by  company  show  a  low  av- 
erage of  settlements. 

GERMAN,   FREEPORT,   ILL.: 

Record  bad.  Concealed  extent  of  its  losses  and 
published  misleading  advertisements,  claiming  a 
solvent  condition  after  the  facts  were  known.  Be- 
cause it  claimed  elsewhere  to  be  perfectly  solvent, 
its  San  Francisco  creditors  were  slow  to  accept  its 
offer  of  60  per  cent,  in  compromise  settlement,  and 
the  company's  actions  so  discredited  it  that  after 
a  time  no  reliance  was  placed  upon  any  of  its  offi- 
cial statements.  It  finally  reinsured  in  the  Royal 
of  Liverpool  on  November  15,  1906,  and  went  into 
the  hands  of  a  receiver  (the  Chicago  Title  &  Trust 
Company)  on  November  19,  1906,  owing  about 
$3,000,000  for  unpaid  claims.  It  had  previously 
paid  out  (according  to  a  report  filed  under  oath 
with    the    Georgia    Insurance    Department    as    of 


26      BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(Sec  pages  48  to  6 J  for  details  of  loss.) 
October    31,    1906)    $1,048,117.82    in    settlement    of 
claims  on  an  avefage   of  60  per   cent.,   their   face 
being  about  $1,750,000. 

GERMAN    NATIONAL,    CHICAGO,    ILL.: 

This  company  was  owned  by  the  German  In- 
surance Company  of  Freeport.  (See  item  regard- 
ing that  company.)  The  methods  followed  by  the 
German  National  were  similar  to  those  of  the  Ger- 
man of  Freeport.  Its  risks  were  reinsured  Novem- 
ber 19,  1906,  in  the  Dubuque  Fire  &  Marine  Insur- 
ance Company,  and  on  November  20,  1906  (next 
day),  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago  was  appointed 
receiver     No  payments  made  so  far  as  known. 

GERMAN     UNDERWRITERS,     MILWAUKEE, 
WIS.: 

See  Milwaukee  Mechanics. 

GIRARD   F.   &   M.,   PHILADELPHIA,   PA.: 

Settled  generally  at  75  per  cent.,  but  with  some 
claimants  settlements  were  made  at  from  90  per 
cent,  to  95  per  cent.  Claimants  report  to  us  that 
the  company  obtained  discounts  of  20  per  cent, 
and  25  per  cent,  upon  statement  that  its  funds 
would  not  permit  larger  payments.  If  its  losses 
were  correctly  reported  by  it,  this  is  untrue.  Its 
methods  caused  many  complaints  and  severe  crit- 
icism by  policyholders. 

"GLADBACHER,"   GLADBACH,    GERMANY: 

Compromised  several  claims  at  80  per  cent.;  fig- 
ures indicate  higher  average  of  settlements.  Small 
loss  only;  able  to  pay  in  full. 

GLENS  FALLS,  GLENS  FALLS,  N.  Y.: 

Settled  generally  at  2  per  cent,  discount,  though 
a  few  cases  are  reported  of  settlements  at  slightly 
larger  discount.  Its  treatment  of  claimants  was 
satisfactory. 

GLOBE  &  RUTGERS,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Endeavored  to  compromise  generally  at  75  per 
cent,  and  did  settle  a  large  number  of  claims  at 
that  figure.  Where  settlements  upon  that  basis 
were  declined  by  claimants,  more  favorable  terms 
were  offered  and  payments  in  a  number  of  cases 
were  made  at  a  rate  in  excess  of  90  per  cent.  The 
attitude  of  the  company  and  the  methods  em- 
ployed to  force  compromises  aroused  criticism 
and  ill-feeling  on  the  part  of  policyholders.    Was 


BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      27 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
able  to  pay  in  full;   no  apparent  ji.stification  of 
discounts  exacted. 

GREAT  LAKES,  INDIAN  TERRITORY: 

Only  small  loss  reported;  no  report  as  to  details 
of  settlement,  if  any. 

HAMBURG  BREMEN,  HAMBURG,  GERMANY. 
Offered  generally  75  per  cent.,  claiming  positive 
instructions  from  Home  Office,  on  the  ground  that 
its  assets  would  not  permit  it  to  pay  more.  In 
some  cases  70  per  cent,  was  offered  and  accepted 
by  claimants.  Comparatively  little  criticism  of 
these  large  discounts,  it  being  generally  believed 
that  the  company  was  honestly  offering  all  it 
could  pay  From  best  information  obtainable, 
we  believe  this  to  be  true. 

HAMILTON  FIRE,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Only  a  few  small  losses.  So  far  as  known,  has 
paid  nothing,  adopting  a  policy  of  delay  in  order 
to  force  compromise. 

HANOVER  FIRE,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settled  generally  at  90  per  cent.,  but  in  a  few 
cases  secured  larger  discounts  In  some  cases 
payments  made  with  discounts  of  2  per  cent,  and 
5  per  cent.     Could  have  paid  in  full 

"HANSEATISCHE,"   HAMBURG,  GERMANY.: 

Small   direct  loss;    no   report   as   to   settlement. 
Believed   involved   also   through   reinsurance. 
HARTFORD  FIRE,  HARTFORD,  CONN.: 

Sustained  an  enormous  loss,  greater  than  that 
of  any  other  company  (except  the  Fireman's 
Fund),  because  of  the  corresponding  volume  of  its 
business  Settled  promptly  in  full,  less  discount 
of  2  per  cent,  for  cash.  Its  treatment  of  claimants 
was  in  every  respect  satisfactory 

HOME  FIRE   &   MARINE,   SAN   FRANCISCO. 
CAL.: 

Settlements  followed  those  of  Fireman's  Fund 
of  San  Francisco,  which  owned  this  company  and 
under  the  stockholders'  liability  law  of  California 
was  liable  for  its  debts.  This  company  is  in  liqui- 
dation 

HOME  INSURANCE  BANKING  AND  TRUST 
CO.,  GALVESTON,  TEXAS: 

Reported  to  have  small  loss  but  no  data  avail- 
able. Not  known  to  have  paid  any  losses  for 
some  months. 


28       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
HOME,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settled  promptly  and  in  full,  with  small  dis- 
counts (usually  I  per  cent.)  for  cash  Its  treat- 
ment of  claimants  was  in  every  respect  satis- 
factory. 

HOUSTON  F.  &  M.,  HOUSTON,  TEXAS: 

AH  reinsurance  of  Austin  Fire.  Paid  that  com- 
pany on  its  basis  of  settlement. 

ICE    MANUFACTURERS    EXCHANGE,    KAN- 
SAS CITY,  MO.: 

Paid  in  full  and  promptly. 
INDEMNITY   EXCHANGE,   CHICAGO,  ILL.; 

Paid  promptly  and  in  full  without  cash  discount. 
INDEMNITY  FIRE,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Followed  settlements   of  Norwich   Union. 

INDEPENDENT  CASH   MUTUAL,  TORONTO. 
ONT.: 

Reported  to  have  a  small  loss,  said  to  be  set- 
tled at  90  per  cent. 

INDIA  MUTUAL,  BOSTON,   MASS.: 

Loss  nominal;  paid  in  full  as  adjusted. 

INDIANAPOLIS  FIRE,  INDIANAPOLIS,  IND.: 

Loss  entirely  through  reinsurance  of  one  com- 
pany. 

INDIVIDUAL     FIRE     UNDERWRITERS,     ST. 
LOUIS,  MO.: 

Settled  promptly  in  full,  without  discount. 

INDIVIDUAL  UNDERWRITERS,  NEW  YORK, 
N.  Y.: 

Settled  in  full,  less  an  agreed  cash  discount; 
$100,000  paid  on  account  before  the  loss  was  ad- 
justed. 

INSURANCE   COMPANY   OF   NORTH   AMER- 
ICA, PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

Settled  in  full,  with  discounts  of  I  per  cent,  or 
2  per  cent  for  cash.  Treatment  of  claimants  satis- 
factory. 

INSURANCE  COMPANY  OF  THE  STATE  OF 
PENNSYLVANIA,  PHILADELPHIA.  PA.: 

Settled  in  full,  or  with  small  discount  No  com- 
plaints as  to  treatment  0/   rlaimants      Loss  small. 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       29 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss. ) 
INSURANCE       UNDERWRITER^       AGENCY. 
PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

Sec  Spring  Garden   Insurance  Company. 
JEFFERSON  FIRE,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

Of  two  losses  reported  to  us,  one  was  settled 
at  a  discount  of  5  per  cent,  and  the  other  at  10 
per  cent.  Company's  figures  indicate  low  average 
of  settlement.    Loss  small;  able  to  pay  in  full. 

JOHNSTOWN    MUTUAL,    JOHNSTOWN,    PA.: 

No  claims  settled  so  far  as  we  can  learn.  Com- 
pany placed  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver  in  January, 
1907.  Was  a  "wild-cat"  mutual  concern  of  no 
standing. 
KING  INSURANCE  COMPANY,  LTD.,  LON- 
DON, ENG.: 

Only  two  losses;  liability  denied  because  of 
earthquake  clause;  nothing  paid  to  date. 

KINGS  COUNTY,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.: 

Lo.ss  all  reinsured  in  Atlas  Assurance  Company, 
which  owns  this  company,  and  settled  its  losses. 

LAW,  UNION  &  CROWN,  LONDON,  ENG.: 

Settled  generally  in  full,  or  at  discount  of  2  per 
ceijt.  for  cash.  In  a  very  few  cases  discounts 
slightly  larger  in  amount  are  reported.  Treat- 
of  claimants  satisfactory. 

LIVERPOOL  &  LONDON  &   GLOBE,  LIVER- 
POOL, ENG.: 

Paid  all  claims  in  full  u^on  adjustment,  with- 
out even  cash  discount.  Treatment  of  claimants 
courteous  and  entirely  satisfactory.  Only  four 
other  companies  settled  non  this  basis,  except  a 
few  whose  losses  were  nominal. 
Li^OYDS,  LONDON,  ENG.: 

Seems  to  have  strictly  followed  the  warranty 
company,  and  where  such  warranty  company  set- 
tled at  100  per  cent.,  claims  paid  promptly  and  in 
full.  Where  warranty  company  denied  liability,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  the  Lloyds  underwriters  followed. 

LONDON    AND    LANCASHIRE,    LIVERPOOL. 
ENG.: 

Settled  generally  at  95  per  cent.,  though  many 
payments  made  at  97  per  cent,  or  98  per  cent. 
Several  others  are  reported  at  92}/^  per  cent,  and 


■10       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
90  per  cent.,  and  even  88  per  cent,  and  85  per  cent. 
Methods  adopted  by  the  company  in  forcing  these 
discounts  were  frequently  regarded  as  illiberal  and 
exacting,  causing  dissatisfaction.  Large  and 
strong  company,  able  to.  pay  in  full. 

LONDON  ASSURANCE  CORPORATION,  LON- 
DON, ENG.- 

Settled  generally  in  full  or  less  discount  of  i  per 
cent  or  2  per  cent.,  a  few  cases  are  reported  where 
discount  of  5  per  cent,  was  secured.    Its  treatment 
of  claimants  was  generally  satisfactory 
LONDON  MUTUAL,  TORONTO,  ONT.: 

Endeavored  to  make  best  possible  compromise 
with  claimants.  Reported  to  have  settled  from  85 
per  cent.  up.  Involved  for  comparatively  small 
amount  and  able  to  pay  in  full. 

LOUISVILLE,  LOUISVILLE,  KY.: 

Losses  entirely  through  reinsurance  of  the 
Traders  of  Chicago.  This  company  states  will 
pay  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  Traders. 

MADISON,  MADISON,  IND.: 

Small  loss;  reported  to  have  settled  at  discounts 
ranging  up  to  30  per  cent. 

MANCHESTER  FIRE,  MANCHESTER,  ENG.: 

Settled  in  full,  or  at  small  discount  for  cash. 

MANUFACTURERS'    INDEMNITY    ASSOCIA- 
TION,  SEATTLE,  WASH.: 

See  Seattle  Fire  &  Marine  Insurance  Company. 

MERCANTILE    FIRE    &    MARINE,    BOSTON, 
MASS.: 

Settled  in  full,  with  discounts  of  from  i  per  cent. 

10   5   per  cent.     Treatment   of   claimants   entirely 

satisfactory. 
"METROPOLE,"  PARIS,  FRANCE: 

Small  loss;  settled  promptly  in  full  without  dis- 
count. 

MICHIGAN     FIRE     &     MARINE,     DETROIT, 
MICH.: 

Settled  in  full  or  at  discounts  of  from  2  per  cent. 
to  5  per  cent.    Treatment  of  claimants  satisfactory. 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      31 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
MICHIGAN    MILLERS'    MUTUAL,    LANSING, 
MICH.: 

Losses  small;  settled  in  full,  without  discount. 

MILWAUKEE  FIRE,  MILWAUKEE,  WIS.: 

No  direct  business.  Losses  all  through  reinsur- 
ance. 

MILWAUKEE     MECHANICS.     MILWAUKEE, 
WIS.: 

At  the  time  of  the  conflagration  this  company 
was  operating  under  the  "Safety  Fund"  law  of 
Wisconsin,  under  the  provisions  of  which  its  assets 
were  divided,  one  portion  being  reserved  for  the 
protection  of  the  holders  of  policies  on  unturned 
property,  the  balance  being  available  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  conflagration  losses.  In  accordance 
with  this  division  the  company  settled  its  claims 
at  70  per  cent,  of  their  face.  In  some  cases  we  are 
advised  that  claimants  received  an  agreement  from 
the  company  to  make  a  further  payment,  should 
any  funds  remain  after  settling  the  conflagration 
losses.  There  are  numerous  complaints  made  re- 
garding the  company's  methods,  though  it  clearly 
acted  within  its  legal  rights  in  settling  on  the  above 
basis. 

MISSISQUOI    &   ROUVILLE    MUTUAL    FIRE, 
FRELIGHSBURG,  P.  Q.,  CAN.: 

Loss  nominal;  paid  in  full. 

MONONGAHELA,  PITTSBURG: 

Small  loss;  no  details  of  setttements  received. 
MONTMAGNY  MUTUAL,  CANADA: 

Paid  in  full;  small  loss. 
MONTREAL-CANADA,  MONTREAL,  CANADA: 

Small  loss;  reported  settled  in  full,  less   i   per 
cent,  cash  discount. 
MOSCOW  FIRE,  MOSCOW,  RUSSIA: 

Reinsurance  losses  only. 

MUNICH     REINSURANCE,     MUNICH,     GER- 
MANY: 

Reinsurance  losses  only. 
MUTUAL     FIRE,     MARINE     AND     INLAND, 
PHILADELPHIA: 

This  company  was  organized  largely  to  insure 
properties  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company 
and  its  allied  concerns.    Its  loss  is  nominal. 


32       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  4S  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
"NADESHDA,"  ST.  PETERSBURG,  RUSSIA: 
Is  known  to  have  compromised  one  claim  at  75 
per  cent,  and  another  at  80  per  cent.;  several  losses 
still  unpaid.     Policy  of  delay  caused  inconvenience 
and  severe  criticism. 

NASSAU.  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.: 

Settled  frequently  at  75  per  cent.,  although  set- 
tlements were  reported,  where  this  compromise 
was  declined  running  as  high  as  95  per  cent.  Its 
published  statements  show  that  it  was  able  to 
pay  in  full  Claimants  complain  regarding  treat- 
ment. 

"NATIONALE,"  PARIS,  FRANCE: 

Loss  small,  paid  in  full  without  discount. 

NATIONAL    FIRE    &    MARINE,    ELIZABETH, 
N.  J.: 

Endeavored  to  compromise  at  70  per  cent.;  in 
one  case  is  known  to  have  paid  80  per  cent.  Fig- 
ures submitted  by  company  show  a  low  average. 
Complaints  received  that,  treatment  of  claimants 
was  unsatisfactory.  Was  able  to  pay  in  full;  small 
loss. 

NATIONAL  FIRE,  HARTFORD,  CONN.: 

The  methods  of  this  company  were  sharply  criti- 
cised. The  statement  was  made  publicly,  on  good 
authority,  that  its  adjusters  were  at  first  instructed 
by  the  company  to  settle  no  claims  except  at  a  re- 
duction of  25  per  cent,  from  the  amount  shown  to 
be  due  by  the  proof  of  loss  Its  president  strongly 
advocated  an  agreement  among  the  companies  to 
compromise  all  claims  at  75  per  cent,  of  the  face 
of  the  policies  Later,  the  company,  apparently 
under  the  pressure  of  public  opinion,  settled  its 
losses  on  the  same  basis  as  other  companies  of 
similar  financial  responsibility.  The  great  major- 
ity of  its  settlements  were  made  (after  the  first 
few  weeks)  for  the  amount  of  the  claims,  less  2 
per  cent  to  5  per  cent,  discount,  though  numerous 
settlements  at  discounts  ranging  up  to  10  per  cent, 
are  reported  The  company  was  undoubtedly  able 
to  pay  in  full. 

Various  figures  were  submitted  by  thfs  com- 
pany in    response    to    our    request    for    a    state- 


BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      33 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
mcnt  of  the  net  amount  of  the  policies  under 
which  claims  were  filed,  and  the  net  loss  incurred 
thereon.  Considerable  correspondence  took  place 
in  an  effort  on  our  part  to  straighten  the  mattj^er 
out,  that  justice  might  be  done  both  to  the  com- 
pany and  to  our  subscribers.  Finally  the  com- 
pany, in  a  letter  dated  January  12,  1907,  signed  H. 
A.  Smith,  now  vice-president  of  the  National, 
stated  that  the  net  loss  was  $2,559,577.97,  and  that 
the  net  amount  of  the  policies  under  which  the 
claims  making  up  that  total  were  filed  was  $2,689,- 
277.94;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  net  loss  in- 
curred was  95.55%  of  the  net  insurance  involved- 
This  is  more  than  was  paid  on  the  average  by 
companies  which  settled  every  claim  at  100%  with- 
out cash  discount,  and  this  company  has  circulated 
broadcast  the  statement  that  it  paid  about  94% 
of  the  claims  against  it,  its  total  salvage,  cash 
discounts,  etc.,  being  about  6%.  It  is  at  once  evi- 
dent that  one  of  the  two  statements  quoted  must 
be  incorrect.  The  figures  in  the  letter  of  Janu- 
ary 12  indicate  that  the  company  paid  a  greater 
percentage  of  thv.  face  of  its  policies  (net)  than 
the  percentage  of  the  claims  against  it  formerly 
stated  to  have  been  paid.  The  company  refused 
to  modify  or  correct  its  figures,  even  when  we 
sent  a  special  messenger  to  Hartford  to  confer 
with  it,  who  handed  the  company  a  written  mem- 
orandum showing  the  impossibility  of  harmoniz- 
ing its  various  statements.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, we  felt  compelled  to  leave  out  of  our 
tables  the  figures  furnished  by  the  company. 
NATIONAL  MUTUAL  CHURCH  INSURANCE 
CO.,  CHICAGO,  ILL.: 

One  small  loss;  paid  in  full. 

NATIONAL  MUTUAL  FIRE,  OMAHA,  NEB.: 

One  small  loss  through  reinsurance.  Claim  car- 
ried at  its  face,  but  not  paid  at  latest  advices. 

NATIONAL  UNION,  PITTSBURG,  PA.: 

Settled  generally  at  discount  of  10  per  cent., 
though  a  number  of  cases  were  reported  where 
settlements  were  made  at  discounts  of  15  per  cent, 
and  others  where  claims  were  paid  at  a  discount  of 
5  per  cent.  Loss  was  very  heavy  in  proportion  to 
the  company's  resources;  it  could  not  have  paid  in 
full  if  liquidated.     Settlements  under  the  circum- 


34      BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  Images  48  to  6j  for  details  uj  Ion  ) 
stances  were  considered  satisfactory  by  most  of  the 
claimants,  though  others  criticised  its  methods  se- 
verely. 

NATIONAL      UNION      SOCIETY,     BEDFORD. 
ENG.: 

Company's  reiiresentatives  state  that  it  had  but 
one  loss,  which  was  paid  in  full 

NEBRASKA  UNDERWRITERS.  OMAHA.  NEB 

One  small  loss,  no  report  as  to  settlement 

NEW  BRUNSWICK,  NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J.: 

Settled  generally  at  75  per  cent.,  although  a  few 
cases  are  reported  of  more  favorable  settlements 
where  this  compromise  was  declined.  Loss  severe 
in  proportion  to  the  company's  resources,  but  its 
statements  show  that  it  was  able  to.  pay  in  full 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE,  MANCHESTER.  N.  H.: 

Settled  generally  in  full  or  at  a  discount  of  1  per 
cent  or  2  per  cent  for  cash  Treatment  of  claim- 
ants Satisfactory 

NEW  YORK  &  BOSTON  LLOYDS,  NEW 
YORK: 

Loss  small;  settled  in  full,  promptly  and  without 
cash  discount 

NEW  YORK  FIRE.  NEW  YORK.  N.  Y.: 

Settled  generally  at  40  per  cent.,  claiming  that 
its  funds  would  not  permit  larger  payments,  though 
a  few  settlements  upon  more  liberal  terms  are  re- 
ported Has  discontinued  business.  The  some- 
what meagre  information  available  indicates  that 
it  could  have  paid  about  50  per  cent  or  55  per  cent, 
by  exhausting  its  resources. 

NEW     YORK      INSURANCE     ASSOCIATION, 
NEW  YORK.  N.  Y.: 

Only  two  claims;  one  (reinsurance)  paid  in  full; 
the  other  at  cash  discount  of  about  6  per  cent. 

NEW   YORK   UNDERWRITERS   AGENCY, 
NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

See  Hartford  Fire,  of  which  the  New  York 
Underwriters'  Agency  is  simply  a  branch. 

NEW  ZEALAND.  AUCKLAND.  N.  Z.: 

As  a  rule  paid  in  full,  less  2  per  cent,  discount. 
In  some  cases  secured  larger  cash  discounts.     In 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      35 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
other  cases  deducted  only  1  per  cent.  Some  of  the 
company's  policies  contamed  earthquake  clause. 
On  such  policies  paid  75  per  cent,  or  80  per  cent. 
Treatment  on  the  whole  satisfactory,  no  com- 
plaints filed  with  us. 

NIAGARA,  NEW  YORK: 

Paid  in  full,  less  i  per  cent,  or  2  per  cent,  for 
cash;  in  some  cases  deducted  5  per  cent.  Treat- 
ment of  claimants  satisfactory 

NORTH  BRITISH  &  MERCANTILE,  LONDON, 
ENG.: 

Paid  nearly  all  claims  in  full,  less  2  per  cent,  for 
cash;  in  some  cases  5  per  cent,  discount  reported, 
and  in  rare  cases  a  larger  percentage.  In  many 
instances  paid  in  full  at  expiration  of  sixty-day 
limit.     Treatment  generally  excellent. 

NORTH     BRITISH     &     MERCANTILE.     NEW 
YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Small  loss  all  through  reinsurance. 

NORTHERN    ASSURANCE    COMPANY,    LON- 
DON,  ENG.: 

Paid  nearly   all   claims   in   full,   less   i   per  cent, 
for  cash  or  without  discount,  at  expiration  of  60 
days.     In  rare  instances  larger  discounts  reported. 
Treatment  in  general  excellent. 
NORTHERN,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Two  small  losses;  paid  promptly  in  full,  and 
without  discount. 

NORTH    GERMAN    FIRE,    HAMBURG.    GER- 
MANY: 

Denied  liability,  apparently  without  excuse. 
Withdrew  from  the  United  States  and  endeavored 
in  every  way  to  avoid  i*^s  obligations.  Reported 
to  have  gone  into  liquidation.  An  agreement  has 
been  made  by  which  all  claims  against  this  com- 
pany may  be  tried  in  Germany  at  a  minimum  ex- 
pense, and  without  the  requirement  of  security  for 
costs,  which,  under  the  law,  the  defendant  is  enti- 
tled to  exact,  and  which,  in  the  case  of  a  foreign 
plaintiff,   is   exceedingly  burdensome. 

NORTH  GERMAN  FIRE,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Has  paid  no  claims  so  far  as  known.  Claims  to 
have  made  every  effort  to  effect  a  compromise  set- 
tlement.   Did  submit  a  proposition,  which  was  re- 


>^6   BEST'S  SAN  FRANCISCO  REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  6j  for  details  of  loss.) 
fused  by  the  claimants.  Is  now  in  the  hands  of  a 
receiver.  Outstanding  business  was  reinsured  in 
the  Cosmopolitan  Fire  Insurance  Company,  which 
is  being  operated  by  A.  Loeb  &  Sons,  General 
Agents,  Chicago,  who  formerly  operated  and  owned 
most  of  the  stock  of  the  North  German  of  New 
York.  This  reinsurance  transaction,  at  a  time  when 
the  North  German  Fire  was  insolvent,  is  apparently 
legal  under  the  New  York  statutes,  but  in  effect 
gave  a  preference  to  those  having  claims  against- 
che  company  for  return  premiums  over  those  hav- 
ing claims  for  losses. 

NORTH  RIVER,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settled  usually  at  75  per  cent.,  but  in  some  cases 
paid  from  90  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  where  the 
insured  was  able  to  bring  pressure  ta  bear. 
Methods  in  adjusting  seve'rely  criticised.  Was 
financially  able  to  pay  all  claims  in  full. 

NORTHWESTERN    FIRE    &    MARINE,    MIN- 
NEAPOLIS,  MINN.: 

Settlements  ranged  from  75  per  cent,  to  65  per 
cent.;  in  some  isolated  cases  paid  more;  majority 
at  75  per  cent.  Company's  methods  sharply  criti- 
cised. 

NORTHWESTERN  NATIONAL,  MILWAUKEE, 
WIS.: 

Settled  many  claims  in  full,  less  2  per  cent,  for 
cash.  Other  settlements  reported  ranige  all  the 
way  down  to  75  per  cent.  The  company  seems  to 
have  started  on  that  basis,  but  later  to  have  paid 
nearer  the  amount  really  due.  Figures  furnished 
by  company  show  low  average  of  settlements. 
Undoubtedly  able  to  pay  in  full. 

NORWICH  UNION,  NORWICH,  ENG.: 

This  company's  policies  contained  an  unusually 
drastic  earthquake  clause,  Has  cofnpromised  most 
of  the  claims  against  it  at  50  per  cent,  or  75  per 
cent,  according  to  the  location  of  the  property 
with  relation  to  the  earthquake  damage.  Many 
claimants,  believing  the  company  cannot  sustain 
the  position,  have  sued  it.  Was  undoubtedly  able 
to  pay  all  claims  in  full.  Fifty  per  cen».  seems  to 
have  been  offered  very  much  more  frequently  than 
75  per  cent.  We  have  a  record  of  one  settlement 
at  50  per  cent. 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      37 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
"NYE  DANSKE,"  COPENHAGEN: 

Loss  understood  to  have  been  incurred  entirely 
through  reinsurance  No  details  obtainable  as  to 
its  extent  or  the  company's  settlements. 

ORIENT,   HARTFORD.  CONN.: 

Most  claims  apparently  settled  at  5  per  cent,  dis- 
count Is  owned  by  the  London  &  Lancashire 
and  was  undoubtedly  able  to  pay  in  full,  but  set- 
tled on  the  same  basis  as  the  Lo.ndon  &  LancaBhire 
witli  discounts  ranging  up  to  10  per  cent.  Methods 
sharply  criticised 
OSAGE.  SAN  FRANCISCO: 

This  IS  not  an  incorporated  company,  but  simply 
an  aggregation  of  individuals  who  insured  each 
other  A  loss  of  $15,000  is  reported,  but  no  details 
of  the  settlement  could  be  obtained. 

OZARK,  FORT  SMITH.  ARK.: 

Loss  small;  not  known  to  iiave  settled  on  any 
basis.     Out  of  business 

PACIFIC  COAST  FIRE,  VANCOUVER,  B.  C: 

Nominal  loss;  no  report  as  to  settlement. 

PACIFIC  FIRE.  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settlements  reported  range  from  70  per  cent,  of 
amount  due  upward  Higliest  settlements  reported 
to  us,  90  per  cent  Complaints  regarding  adjusters' 
methods,  wiiich  caused  severe  criticism  of  the  com- 
pany Figures  furnished  by  company  show  very 
low  average  of  settlements 

PACIFIC  UNDERWRITERS,  SAN  FRANCISCO, 
CAL.: 

Policies  were  guaranteed  two-thirds  by  the  Fire- 
man's Fund  and  one-third  by  the  Home  Fire  & 
Marine.  Settled  same  basis  as  Fireman's  Fund, 
which  see. 

PALATINE,   LONDON,  ENG.: 

This  company  is  owned  by  the  Commercial 
Union  of  London.  At  first  denied  any  liability 
under  strong  eartliquakc  clause;  later  offered  50 
per  cent,  and  75  per  cent.,  according  to  the  loca- 
tion of  tlie  property  with  relation  to  the  earth- 
quake damage.    Was  able  to  pay  in  full. 

"PATERNELLE,"  PARIS: 

Settled  promptly  and  in   full  without  discount. 


38      BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
PELICAN  ASSURANCE,  NEW  YORK: 

Owned  by  the  Phoenix  of  London  and  settled 
generally  on  the  same  basis  as  that  company,  viz., 
in  full  less  2  per  cent,  for  cash. 

PENNSYLVANIA  FIRE,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

Paid  usually  in  full  at  the  end  of  sixty  days,  or 
immediately  less  2  per  cent,  to  5  per  cent,  cash 
discount.  Some  settlements  reported  at  lower  fig- 
ures. No  complaints  filed  with  us  regarding  its 
treatment  of  claimants. 

PETER  COOPER,  NEW  YORK: 

Offered  generally  75  per  cent.,  a  small  loss  re- 
ported settled  at  a  higher  figure.  Methods  sharply 
criticised.  Loss  comparatively  small.  Able  to  pay 
in  full. 

PHENIX,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.: 

Offered  75  per  cent,  in  some  instances,  but  paid 
numerous  claims  in  full  at  expiration  of  time  limit, 
or  less  I  per  cent,  to  5  per  cent,  cash  discount. 
Many  other  claims  reported  to  us  settled  at  90  per 
cent,  and  various  m'termediate  figures,  and  some 
at  as  low  as  85  per  cent.  Practice  seems  to  have 
been  to  secure  largest  discount  obtainable;  com- 
plaint^ regarding  treatment  of  claimants  numer- 
ous. Its  loss  was  very  heavy,  but  its  sworn  state- 
ments as  published  by  the  New  York  Insurance 
Department  show  that  it  could  have  paid  in  full. 
PHILADELPHIA  FIRE,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

This  company  failed  in  1904,  but  was  mentioned 
in  a  proof  of  loss  as  involved  for  $500. 

PHILADELPHIA     UNDERWRITERS,    PHILA- 
DELPHIA,  PA.; 

These  policies  are  jointly  guaranteed  by  the  Fire 
Association  of  Philadelphia  and  the  Insurance 
Company  of  North  America.  It  is  stated,  upon 
good  authority,  that  the  adjustments  were  handled 
by  the  Fire  Association  under  an  old  agreement 
existing  between  the  two  companies  Most  of  the 
claims  seem  to  have  been  settled  at  90  per  cent,  to 
95  per  cent.,  though  we  have  many  reports  of  set- 
tlements in  full  or  less  2  per  cent  cash  discount. 
See  comments  on  settlements  of  Fire  Association. 
The  Insurance  Company  of  North  America  settled 
its  own  losses  at  a  higher  average  than  the  Fire 
Association. 


BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      39 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
PHOENIX  ASSURANCE,  LONDON,  ENG.: 

Nearly  all  claims  paid  in  full  less  i  per  cent,  or 
'2  per  cent,  for  cash.     Several  settlements  at  5  per 

cent,  discount  reported.    Treatment  courteous. 
PHOENIX,  HARTFORD,  CONN.: 

Paid  in  full  less  2  per  cent,  for  cash  in  practi- 
cally all  cases.  A  few  isolated  settlements  at  5  per 
cent,  discount  or  more  reported,  where  earthqual^ 
damage  alleged.  General  record  good;  no  com- 
plaints filed.  Figures  show  high  average  of  set- 
tlements. 
"POLAR,"  BILBAO,  SPAIN: 

Loss  small;  settled  promptly  and  in  full  without 
discount. 
PROTECTOR  UNDERWRITERS.   SAN   FRAN- 
CISCO,  CAL.: 

Policies    guaranteed    by    Phoenix    of    Hartford; 
same   settlements. 
PROVIDENCE  -  WASHINGTON.         P  R  O  V I- 
DENCE,  R.  I. 

Settled  generally  at  discount  of  2  per  cent,  to  5 
per  cent,  and  a  few  se'ttlements  in  full  reported. 
In  other  cases  reported  to  have  settled  at  dis- 
counts ranging  up  to  15  per  cent,  or  more,  where 
earthquake  damage  claimed.  General  average 
shown  by  company's  figures  furnished  to  us  only 
fair.    Loss  heavy,  but  could  have  paid  in  full. 

PRUSSIAN  NATIONAL,  STETTIN,  GERMANY: 

As  a  rule  offered  75  per  cent.,  though  we  have  3 
record  of  one  very  strong  concern  which  forced 
a  settlement  in  full.  In  several  cases  it  settled  at 
better  than  75  per  cent.  Considerable  criticism 
of  its  methods.  Able  to  pay  in  full  if  losses  cor- 
rectly reported. 
QUEEN  CITY,  SIOUX  FALLS,  S.  D.: 

A  small  company  with  a  large  loss,  but  able  to 
pay  all  claims  in  full.  Settlements  reported  range 
from  75  per  cent  upward;  the  majority  appear  to  be 
at  about  90  per  cent.  Some  claims  were  paid  in 
full  on  the  basis  of  one-third  down,  one-third  in 
three  months  and  one-third  in  six  months. 

QUEEN  INSURANCE  CO.  OF  AMERICA.  NEW 
YORK: 

Paid  all  claims  in  full,  immediately  on  adjust- 
ment,  without  discount.    Record  of  the  best.    Only 


40       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
four    other    companies    (other   than    those    whose 
loss  was  nominal)  settled  as  liberally.     Treatment 
of  claimants  courteous  and  entirely  satisfactory 

REPUBLIC  MUTUAL,  JOHNSTOWN,  PA.: 

This  was  a  "wild-cat"  mutual  concern,  reported 
to  have  lost  $10,000;  not  known  to  have  made  any 
settlements;  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver  in 
January,  1907. 

RHINE    &    MOSELLE,    STRASBOURG,    GER- 
MANY: 

Withdrew  from  the  State.  Offered  to  settle 
claims  of  $500  or  less  at  50  per  cent,  refusing  to 
pay  anything  on  larger  claims.  Record  very  bad. 
A  committee  representing  claimants  went  to  Ger- 
many to  endeavor  to  effect  a  settlement,  but  evi- 
dently failed  to  accomplish  anything  tangible. 

ROCHESTER  GERMAN,  ROCHESTER,  N.  Y.: 

Settlements  reported  range  from  85  per  cent  up- 
ward, the  majority  being  at  90  per  cent,  or  95  per 
cent.  Some  claims  were  settled  in  full  less  2  per 
cent,  for  cash.  Loss  was  very  heavy  in  proportion 
to  the  company's  resources. 

'ROSSIA,"  ST.  PETERSBURG: 
Reinsurance  only. 

ROYAL  EXCHANGE  ASSURANCE,  LONDON, 
ENG.: 

A  wide  variety  of  settlements  reported,  the  ma- 
jority being  at  90  per  cent,  to  95  per  cent.,  though 
a  great  many  claims  were  settled  at  98  per  cent. 
Company  was  unquestionably  able  to  pay  in  full. 
Methods  of  its  adjusters  caused  complaint  in  some 
cases. 

ROYAL  INSURANCE  COMPANY.  LIVERPOOL, 
ENG.: 

Paid  all  claims  in  full  immediately  upon  adjust- 
ment without  even  cash  discount.  Treatment  of 
claimants  courteous  and  entirely  satisfactory.  Only 
four  other  companies  settled  on  this  basis,  except 
a  few  whose  loss  was  nominal. 

RUSSIAN  TRANSPORT,  ST.  PETERSBURG: 

One  settlement  reported  at  80  per  cent.  Figures 
furnished  by  company  indicate  that  it  settled  at 
Jbetween  85  per  cent,  and  90  per  cent,  of  the  amount 
due. 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      41 

(See  pages  48  to  6j  for  details  of  loss.) 
ST.  PAUL  FIRE  &  MARINE,  ST.  PAUL,  MINN.: 
Many  claims  settled  in  full  or  less  2  per  cent.; 
a  number  of  settlements  at  95  per  cent,  reported 
Treatment  of  claimants  satisfactory 

SALAMANDRA,  ST.   PETERSBURG: 

Reinsurance  only. 
"SALAMANDRE,"  HAVRE,  FRANCE: 

Loss  small.  No  details  of  settlements.  Figures 
submitted  by  company  indicate  that  it  paid  about 
80  per  cent,  of  the  amount  due. 

SCOTCH  UNDERWRITERS,  SAN  FRANCISCO, 
CAL.: 

These  policies  were  guaranteed  by  the  Cale- 
donian of  Edinburgh,  which  see;  settlements  on 
same  basis,  and  subject  to  same  criticism. 

SCOTTISH    UNION    AND   NATIONAL.    EDIN- 
BURGH,  SCOTLAND: 

Nearly  all  claims  paid  in  full  when  adjusted  or 
less  I  per  cent,  or  2  per  cent,  cash  discount.  In 
some  cases  paid  in  full  at  the  end  of  sixty  days; 
in  others  discounts  ranging  as  high  as  10  per  cent, 
are  reported.  Treatment  of  claimants  courteous. 
General  average  of  payments  high. 

SEATTLE  F.  &  M.,  SEATTLE,  WASH.: 

Settled  promptly  and  in  full. 

SECOND  RUSSIAN,  ST.  PETERSBURG: 

One  settlement  reported  at  80  per  cent.  Figures 
furnished  by  company  indicate  that  it  paid  from  85 
per  cent,  to  90  per  cent,  of  the  amount  due  Small 
loss;  able  to  pay  in  full. 

SECURITY  FIRE,  BALTIMORE,  MD.: 

Denied  liability  because  of  earthquake  clause  and 
made  no  attempts  to  settle  its  losses.  Record  bad. 
Outstanding  business  was  reinsured  in  the  New 
Jersey  Fire  Insurance  Company  which  is  now  being 
operated  by  the  general  agency  firm  which  for- 
merly operated  the  Security  Fire.  A  receiver  was 
appointed  June  20,  1906,  for  the  latter.  No  pay- 
ments have  been  made  to  date  as  far  as  known 
and  no  definite  statement  has  been  made  by  the 
receiver  regarding  the  ccHidition  of  the  estate  or 
the  probable  amount  and  time  of  payment  of  divi- 


42       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.} 
dends  to  creditors.     He  has,  however,  been  ener- 
getic in   having  all  claims  properly  filed  and  ex- 
amined. 

SECURITY  FIRE,  CINCINNATI,  OHIO: 

Reinsurance  only.     (See  Eureka.) 

SECURITY     INSURANCE     COMPANY,    NEW 
HAVEN,  CONN.: 

Settled  most  of  its  claims  at  about  5  per  cent, 
discount;  in  some  cases  only  i  per  cent,  or  2  per 
cent  discount  was  taken.  In  other  cases  discounts 
of  10  per  cent  or  more  are  reported.  Some  com- 
plaints from  claimants. 

SHAWNEE  FIRE,  TOPEKA,  KAN.: 

One  loss  through  reinsurance;  paid  as  per  proofs 
on  receipt  o.f  same. 

SKANDIA,  STOCKHOLM.  SWEDEN: 

Reinsurance  only. 

"SOLEIL,"  PARIS: 

Small  loss;  paid  promptly  and  in  full  without 
discount. 

SOUTHERN,  NEW  ORLEANS,  LA.: 

Small  loss.  No  report  as  to  settlement;  figures 
furnished  by  company  indicate  that  it  paid  90  per 
cent. 

SPRINGFIELD    FIRE    &    MARINE,    SPRING- 
FIELD, MASS.: 

Settled  practically  all  claims  in  full  or  less  i  per 
cent,  or  2  per  cent,  for  cash.  In  rare  instances  5 
per  cent,  cash  discounts  reported.  Treatment  of 
claimants  uniformly  excellent.  Its  average  of  pay- 
ments was  very  high. 

SPRING  GARDEN,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

Paid  generally  70  per  cent,  or  75  per  cent.;  but 
in  some  cases  it  is  reported  to  have  paid  90  per 
cent,  or  more.  To  secure  settlements  at  70  per 
cent,  its  representatives  are  reported  to  have  al- 
leged that  it  was  unable  to  pay  more.  Its  present 
statement  shows  that  this  was  not  true,  assuming 
its  statement  of  the  amount  of  its  loss  to  be  accu- 
rate. There  appears  to  have  been  no  uniformity 
in  the  treatment  of  claimants,  the  company  asking 
large  discounts,  and  paying  as  high  as  95  per  cent, 
if  unable  to  settle  at  less.    Most  of  the  settlements, 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       43 

(See  pages  48  to  63  for  detcils  of  loss.) 
however,  were  around  70  per  cent.     Repeated  re- 
quests for  a  statement  in  detail  of  its  losses  have 
been  ignored.     Methods  were  sharply  criticised. 
STANDARD,  AMSTERDAM: 

Small  loss;  paid  promptly  and  in   full  without 
discount 
STATE,  DES  MOINES,  IOWA: 

No  information  obtainable  from  the  company 
as  to  the  extent  of  its  loss,  and  no  reports  filed 
with  us  regarding  its  settlements. 

STATE,  OMAHA,  NEB.: 

Small  loss;  paid  in  full. 
STATE  FIRE,  LIVERPOOL,  ENG.: 

Reports  indicate  that  settlements  were  about  95 
per  cent,  on  the  average,  though  some  claims  are 
reported  paid  in  full. 

STUYVESANT,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

Settlements  reported  range  from  70  per  cent,  to 
90  per  cent.  Numerous  complaints  from  policy- 
holders. Its  sworn  statements  show  that  it  was 
able  to  pay  in  full;  apparently  no  valid  reason  for 
arbitrary  discounts  demanded. 

SUN  INSURANCE  OFFICE,  LONDON,  ENG.: 
Paid  nearly  all  claims  at  2  per  cent,  cash  dis- 
count or  in  full  at  end  of  sixty  days.  In  a  few  in- 
stances discounts  of  5  per  cent,  or  7  per  cent,  are 
reported.  Treatment  of  claimants  was  courteous 
and  no  complaints  have  been  recorded  with  us 
regarding  this  company. 

SVEA  FIRE  &  LIFE,  GOTHENBURG,  SWEDEN: 
Endeavored  to  secure  large  discounts  and  settled 
many  claims  at  75  per  cent,  to  85  per  cent.  Other 
settlements  range  all  the  way  up  to  98  per  cent, 
and  an  occasional  settlement  in  full  is  reported. 
No  uniformity  in  the  settlements  made;  practice 
was  evidently  to  exact  largest  discount  obtainable. 
Able  to  pay  in  full,  although  its  loss  was  heavy. 

TANNERS'  MUTUAL,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

Paid  its  single  loss  in  full. 

TEUTONIA,  NEW  ORLEANS,  LA.: 

Settled  most  claims  in  full  or  less  2  per  cent,  to 
5  per  cent,  discount.  A  fev/  less  favorable  settU- 
ments  reported.  No  complaints  regarding  it  re- 
corded with  us.    General  average  good. 


44        BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  6s  for  details  of  loss.) 

THURINGIA,  ERFURT,  GERMANY: 

This  company's  business  was  reinsured  some 
years  ago  in  the  Fireman's  Fund  Insurance  Co.,  of 
Sin  Francisco,  which  company  is  ultimately  liable 
for  losses  under  Thuringia  policies;  but  the  Thur- 
ingia  is  responsible  to  the  insured.  It  docs  not 
appear  to  have  made  any  general  offer  to  pay  losses 
under  its  policies,  endeavoring  to  induce  claimants 
to  deal  with  the  Fireman's  Fund,  which  could  not 
pay  in  full.  Claimants  have  consequently  suffered 
great  inconvenience.  Sohie  settlements  by  the 
Fireman's  Fund  are  reported  cli  the  same  basis  as 
the  settlements  of  the  latter;  that  is,  50  per  cent, 
in  cAsh,  payable  in  installments,  and  50  per  cent, 
in  stock  of  the  Fireman's  Fund  at  a  valuation  of 
500  per  cent.  We  know  of  some  claims  settled 
practically  in  full  by  this  company  upon  the  refusal 
of  the  policyholders  to  deal  with  the  Fireman's 
Fund. 

TIDE  WATER,  CAMBRIDGE,  MD.: 

Small  loss.  Not  known  to  have  made  any  settle- 
ments.    Company  practically  out  of  business. 

TRADERS,  CHICAGO,  ILL.: 

Went  into  hands  of  a  receiver  soon  after  the 
fire.  No  settlements  made.  Receiver  estimates 
that  company  will  pay  about  70  per  cent,  in  liqui- 
dation. The  receiver  denied  liability  on  all  the 
claims  on  every  technicality  possible  under  the 
policy,  making,  it  necessary  for  the  insiired  to 
prove  every  claim. 

TRADERS'  FIRE.  TORONTO,  CANADA: 

Loss  small;  reported  settled  at  75  per  cent 

TRANSATLANTIC,  HAMBURG,  GERMANY: 

Denied  liability,  though  its  policies  did  not  con- 
tain an  earthquake  clause.  Withdrew  from  the 
State  and  made  no  effort  to  meet  its  obligations. 
Has  been  sued  both  in  the  United  States  and  in 
Germany.  Its  losses  were  very  heavy.  On  Jan. 
16,  1907,  art  offer  of  compromise  settlement  was 
made,  providing  for  the  payment  of  20  per  cent. 
of  the  adjusted  claihis,  liquidation  by  the  company, 
and  thereupon  a  distribution  to  cLiiitiants  of  75  per 
cent,  of  the  net  assets,  after  certain  reserves  have 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      45 

{See  pages  48  to  63  for  details  of  loss.) 
been  made  and  the  pension  fund  for  employees  of 
the  company  deducted.     The  agreement  becomes 
binding  only  if  90  per  cent,  of  all  claimants  sign  it 
prior  to  April  22nd,  1907.  , 
TRAVELERS'  FIRE,  PINE  BLUFF,  ARK.: 

Only  four  losses;  two  paid  in  full,  and  two  less 
10%,  after  considerable  delay. 
UNION     ASSURANCE     SOCIETY,     LONDON, 
ENG.: 

Paid  majority  of  its  losses  less  2  per  cent,  for 
cash;  many  in  full,  "and  others  less  1  per  cent. 
Other  settlements  are  reported  at  5  per  cent,  and 
some  at  greater  discount.    Treatment  satisfactory. 

UNION  FIRE,  PARIS,  FRANCE: 

Small  loss;  settled  promptly  and  in  full  without 
discount. 

UNION,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.: 

No  direct  losses.  Entire  liability  through  rein- 
surance of  Pennsylvania  Fire  Insurance  Company, 
which  released  this  company  upon  receiving  a 
guarantee  of  payment  from  a  syndicate  of  stock- 
holders of  the  Union. 

UNITED  FIREMENS,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Paid  most  of  its  losses  at  90  per  cent,  or  95  per 
cent.,  but  some  settlements  reported  at  less  than 
90  per  cent.  Its  statements  show  that  it  was  able 
to  pay  in  full. 

UNITED  STATES  FIRE,  NEW  YORK. 

Losses  mainly  reinsurance.  Company  states  that 
its  few  direct  losses  'vcre  paid  in  full. 

"URBAINE,"  PARIS,  FRANCE: 

Small  loss;  settled  promptly  and  in  full  without 
discount. 

VERMONT  MUTUAL,  MONTPELIER,  VT.: 

Small  loss;  settled  in  full. 

VICTORIA  FIRE,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

This  company  is  owned  by  the  Union  Assurance 
Society  of  London  and  settled  on  same  basis.  Is 
now  out  of  business. 

VIRGINIA  STATE,  RICHMOND,  VA.: 

Small  loss;  no  reports  of  settlement. 


,46       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 

(See  pages  48  to  63  far  details  of  los?.) 

WABASH.  HAMMOND,  IND.: 
'    Very  small   loss.     Company  in   liquidation;  not 
known  to  have  made  any  settlements. 

WASHINGTON  FIRE,  SEATTLE,  WASH.: 

Very  heavily  involved  for  a  company  of  its  size, 
partly  through  direct  and  partly  through  reinsur- 
ance business.  Settled  promptly  and  in  full;  rec- 
ord excellent. 

WELLINGTON      MUTUAL,      GUELPH,      ON- 
TARIO: 

Paid  at  from  85  per  cent,  to' 95  per  cent.  Losses 
small;  the  company  having  written  only  surplus 
lines  in  San  Francisco.  No  apparent  reason  why 
it  should  not  have  paid  in  full. 

WESTCHESTER,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.: 

MpiSt  of  the  claims  appear  to  have  been  paid  in 
full  or  less  i  per  cent.,  2  per  cent,  or  5  per  cent, 
discount.  Other  settlements  at  discounts  up  to  10 
per  cent,  reported.    Average  high. 

WESTERN  ASSURANCE,  TORONTO,  ONT.: 
In  the  great  majority  of  cases  claims  were  paid 
at  100  per  cent.,  though  some  settlements  are  re- 
ported at  discounts  of  10  per  cent,  or  15  per  cent. 
In  many  instances  payment  of  part  of  the  loss 
was  deferred  and  term  drafts  issued.  Practically 
all  of  these  term  drafts  have  matured  and  been 
paid.  No  complaints  reported  to  us,  the  settle- 
ments having  given  general  satisfaction.  Figures 
filed  by  the  company  show  high  average  of  settle- 
ments.    Loss  severe. 

WILLIAMSBURG  CITY,  BP.OOKLYN,  N.  Y.: 
Most  of  this  company's  losses  were  settled  at  SO 
per  cent,  or  75  per  cent.,  because  of  an  earth- 
quake clause  in  its  policy.  It  claims  to  have  paid 
liberally  under  the  policies  which  did  not  contain 
the  earthquake  clause;  reports  indicate  that  as  a 
rule  it  paid  about  95  per  cent,  in  such  cases.  The 
earthquake  clause  used  by  this  company  was  very 
strict  in  its  terms. 

WILMINGTON  FIRE,  WILMINGTON,  DEL.: 
Losses  small;  one  settlement  reported  at  70  per 
cent.    Figures  furnished  by  company  indicate  that 
it  paid  from  75  per  cent,  to  80  per  cent,  on  the 
average. 

YORK  MUTUAL  FIRE,  TORONTO,  ONT.: 

Small  loss;  no  claim  yet  made;  states  will  settle 
in  full. 


BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      47 

EXPLANATION   OF  RATIO   USED   IN 
SAN  FRANCISCO  LOSS  TABLE 

After  careful  thought,  we  concluded  that  the  only 
fair  basis  of  comparison  between  con-ipanies  was  the 
ratio  of  the  net  loss  incurred  tq  the  net  amount 
involved.  By  this  we  mean  the  actual  net  amount 
paid  out  by  each  company,  or  remaining  unpaid  but 
acknowledged  as  a  liability;  and  the  face  of  the  poli- 
cies under  which  claims  were  filed,  less  the  face  of 
the  reinsurance  thereon.  Different  companies  kept 
their  records  in  different  ways.  For  instance,  one 
company  would  enter  in  the  reinsurance  column  the 
amount  due  from  the  reinsuring  companies,  on  the 
basis  of  the  claims  filed  against  the  original  com- 
pany; and  would  then  deduct  in  the  salvage  column 
only  the  salvages,  etc.,  on  the  net  amount  of  its  loss. 
Other  companies,  on  the  contrary,  would  include  in 
the  reinsurance  column  the  amount  actually  recov- 
ered or  to  be  recovered  frojn  the  reinsuring  com- 
panies; and  would  then  enter  in  the  salvage  column 
the  salvage  on  the  entire  loss,  including  the  share 
of  the  reinsurers.  Whatever  the  method,  however, 
all  the  companies  finally  arrived  at  a  correct  state- 
ment of  the  net  loss  incurred.  Practically  all  the 
claims  were  paid  when  the  figures  reported  to  us 
were  made  up,  and  the  amount  actually  disbursed 
necessarily  could  no.t  vary  however  the  accounts 
were  kept.  The  amount  of  the  comparatively  few 
claims  remaining  unpaid  could  be  closely  estimated, 
and  consequently  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  state- 
ment of  the  net  loss  as  reported  to  us  is  approxi- 
mately correct  in  every  case. 

This  latter  item  we  compare  with  the  net  amount 
of  the  policies  under  which  clamis  were  filed,  the 
aggregate  of  those  claims  appearing  in  the  item  of 
"net  loss."  A  moment's  consideration  will  show  that 
this  must  be  a  fair  basis  of  comparison  for  all  com- 
panies which  sustained  a  sufficient  number  of  losses 
to  insure  an  average  experience  in  adjusting.  This 
ratio  is  absolutely  reliable,  except  in  the  rare  cases 
where  the  figures  evidently  have  been  incorrectly 
reported  to  us,  and  we  have  made  every  effort  in 
such  cases  to  secure  the  correct  figures.  If  the 
ratio  is  lower  than  one  might  expect,  there  is  some 
good  reason  for  it.  A  company  showing  a  low  ratio 
on  a  large  number  of  adjustments  simply  settled  in 
that  way.  Its  own  figures  show  conclusively  and 
beyond  any  possibility  of  controversy  that  it  did  not 
settle  as  liberally  as  some  other  companies  showing 
a  higher  ratio. 

We  desire  to  emphasize  as  strongly  as  possible 
that  this  ratio  does  NOT  indicate  the  percentage 
of  the  claims  against  them  paid  by  each  company. 
That  percentage  is  shown  in  our  comments  on  the 
individual  companies  making  up  the  body  of  our 
report. 


18  BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


j 

o 

U)  o    . 

+-» 

rt 

<u  *-"  "O 

(Ni       >o  o 

CM  r^ 

vO 

COO 

»oo 

Cr-- 

-  o  « 

o      f  o  o 

CM  •* 

o 

oo 

^^ 

Ov-' 

r;          O. 

c/:  ,^"f^  o 

OO** 

00 

fOO 

'^j^^* 

O 

eu 

o  ^-a 

60  ^^o 

oo  00 

CO 

00  «-» 

cOr^ 

1    o 

o 

3i2  rt 

u->  O  O-  O 

>0  '-'               ■'^ 

oo        vO'- 

U5  o 

o 

o  o  —  o 

1-.  "f                    C) 

^  o      •.-  o 

O   c8 

c 
a 

1^  O  •*_""; 

c-'i  o  oT  tm 

in  0_             <>_ 

r^j  O       vo  oo_ 

05 

3 

3  "2 

GO  o  o       ^~- 

OO^^O 

O  ^^r^  r^ 

o  iS 

w 

OC  rO  O          O 

CN  o  o  on 

LO    o  O  CM 

C 

^^ 

O-*^  a> 

^-  fv^  *— 1 

•—«*-<                          .-H 

"^ 

(l> 

S 

0)0*-. 

^— ^ 

^^ 

ti 

t-,-2  <u 

2. 

&H-c3 

o 

A 

\0  !>  »-  o  o 

vO  <r)^  O  ro 

i>->  O  r>.  <)0  \0 
^  »/-,  Tf  ^  6^ 

s 

"+  :yD  c>0  O  "-> 

r-  O  ^  Oi^ 

(3 

M 

ro  C^  t^  l>^  ■* 

m  CO  o  o  o 

CM  j^  T  in  ro 

9 

o 

1^  CO  "^  --  '-> 

ro  O"  CJ  o"  r- 

inO  ^'oci 

Iq 

J 

\/-,  .-•  I^        "-' 

vO  ^  -O  O  CM 

O  «^XN  O 

o  o\  CO      c> 

O  vO  t-  O  -^ 

■^  y5  r~  ^ 

U 

*-> 

T-1    CN                            ♦-' 

'^"'^"x;^'^" 

g^" 

ts 

z 

S§! 

r» 

•-) 

6 

O  CMOO          O 

O  CM  OOO 

•V4 

c 

2 

•5 

^  IT)  tn       o 
.-a-  T)<  o      "1 

y-;  C>  \0  ,—  •* 

""-  O  O  t^ 
CM  ir.  O  O 

J3 

(N  CM  (N     ^  «^ 
CM  CN  ^    '^  CO 

-~  o  omo 

& 

'i"  O  — '        <N 

Tf  -<  CM         VO 

C  O  "-"  in  vO 

K 

—  o  o      00 

CM  O  «^         /^ 

jCT'  .m  CM  /^  in 

t:~  CO  "^  O  r^ 

*4' 

»-  00  ro          CM 

^ 

§ 

CO  -^  vr>        ro 

'0*0  ^o"      csj" 

rC  >—  vO  in  rr 

r^  CO  0~  "-I 

CM  t^  ■*  ..^co 

CM  t-~  CO 

d 

3 

"  O  ro    S  C^ 

-^  O"^  C  '^ 

^so_ 

.9 

CM  '^ 

«-    "^ 

gci 

<d 

a> 

J 

P^ 

'3. 

iS 

o  ^  O  O  t~~ 

O  CM  Ov  O  O 

K-,    O-    O    —'    »*> 

«? 

O  ^  W  O  •:}< 

O  -S"  CO  o  o 

O  in  r^  Cv  00 

O  CM  r^  vn  CM 

O  t^  O  O  "^ 

O  CO  O  in  O 

^ 

o 

O  O  t~  '-I  C?v 

o"x^  oo'o'o" 

O  CM  O  O  O 

vO  ro  O        Qn 

ro  r^  Q  O  vo 

O  v~.  >c)  t^ 

Oi^  <*)        ^ 

lO  00  O  rO 

t/1 

23 

•^  -a*  »-<      CO 

^'cMci"'^*^" 

.«>■* 

rs 

O 

/— N 

Tt* 

u 

w 

«) 

J>0 
Oh 

1       !2 

O  oO  >rt 

to  rO               CM 

^  -^       >*in 

CN  CM  o 

OvX^                ,rO 

O        901^ 

;.—  t: 

O  r^  vO 

lO  CM  ^_^^^0 

CM          O  CM 

^ 

^  ,-.              g 

'^SS 

"o^ 

rX 

to 

2      w 

^.  '■■£  i" 

<a  o    -g  2 

ex   .^  ^^4 

-  c  c  c  5 

a     .r»3     •  <u 

o  c  :  -^ 

^^   D  >^"=^ 

W  i;  C  in  VS 

c^  d  ai  ci  Co 
o  o  o  o  o 
c  c  C  '-u  'C 

rt  o  0)  «>  "o 

1          a)   0)  tkfi^:  ~ 

s  e  E  €  H 

I         <<<<< 

<<<<:<: 

BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      40 


o 

o  <^o 

VO  »o  O 

Ov  -H 

VO 

o 

v^O  c<« 

\n 

•^  <N  O 

<N  — . 

U-) 

o 

OfO  O 

Ov 

v/"/  O  f^ 

VO  t^ 

00 

«^ 

r<.  Ov  c^ 

c» 

00  oo  00 

00  Ov 

CwO 

O        O  O  fS 

00 

r^  O  00 

O  ro 

o 

o      ooo^ 

r^ 

t^  O  -^ 

o  o 

o 

i^         O  O  Lr> 

O 

lO  O  I^ 

\y->  --H 

o 

fN        OOO 

r» 

00  O  fN 

t^    Tf 

o 

/-v»-<  <N  rO 

t^ 

—  —  Ov 

fN  lO 

rr> 

Vj                 ^4 

«-4 

rn 

00  CO 

Tf 

^^ 

<3 

tN-^    C 

10  o 

O  O  O  "^  "^ 

.^ 

f-^\r,  \ri  \o 

00  ■^  •^  OO  o 

in  O  i-^'  <^i  <N 

VO 

O  O  CM  LO 

vO  Ov  t^  vO  O 

t^  O  O  i^  o 

^ 

(^  04  O  Ov 

Ov  vO  ro  Ov  O 

■•-•  O  t^  oc  O 

DO 

,C  '-'  <»  o 

O-  O  Ov 

t^O 

O         ^  i^J 

irl 

t^          t^ 

fO  O  ^  vo  \o         1 

Tf                         O- 

•^H 

(M 

«*  oo  Ov  ro  T^        1 

-o 

C4                 '-' 

CN  T-i 

.<> 

O         vO 

T)* 

.  "->  (N 

<^       r^ 

.^ 

XT)           VO 

o 

~  r^  VO 

ro 

ro        vr> 

rvi 

M  Ov  r^ 

W-)           t^ 

O 

o 

2-3    " 

oo        t^ 
CO         >-< 

rv) 

^3 

-H   cv*  00 


<N  r^  vr> 

VO  Ov  1^ 
vO  VO  t^ 

VO  ■<*  VO 
vO  VO  t^ 


•«  O 


OOO  VO  fO 
VO  O  O  fS  -rj< 
r^  O  O  t^  oO 

00  O  ro  O  00 
t^  O  VO  O  -t 
VO  O  »^  O  <N 

<N  fN  —  O 

VO  Ov  o  o 

'—  O)  vO  O 

•^  VO  00  O 
Ov  VO  ro  ro 
CC  lO  CS  ■>* 


•-<         fO  to  O 


■rt  -r^  VO 

'5' 


■*  Ov  "* 

VO  00      to 


^  3 


S  'S  ^  §  ^" 


^    •-■    ra    ^     '^ 
tn   en  -£    J^  -»^ 


3  3rt  d'c 


Hill 

"-n  -^  tc  if  ^ 
aapqcscQu 


^  o  —  :  bo 
J  t  ^-^W 

o^  b/:;^  ■£ 
S  c  ra"^  o 
CO  re.i;  aj-g 

-^'f^-i:  c 
'H  '5  tf  c  „- 

o  -  p  «:i  re 
nS   re    rt   rt   o 

UUUUO 


■2  ^o  t:^)'^ 
■9  rt  ^  t'^!:;  rt 


C    >v 


aw 


^  act  c  - 


m 

>> 

S 
o 

a>i 

lyi 

c 

C 
n 

H 

03 

w   c5 
3X) 

a 

o 

^ 

o 

cro 

o 

O 

0) 

c 

(J 

•u 

,r^ 

1" 

r) 

3 

-i-J 

^ 

W. 

0) 

-d 

m 

'ri 

re 

o 

-d 

re 
o 
a 

2i 

'c1 

+j 

^ 

s 

c 

'/I 

0) 

Q 

05 

d 

4-> 

o 

c 

cS 

o 

VJ 

o 

O 

o 

p 

r" 

S  2  w-  -t^  t^  M 
S)00 3">  % 

ir  U  VO  v5   4)^ 


^0       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


1      <^    ,n    <^       • 

■^  «  il  -^  -o 

O  •^'      •  i-J 

r^ 

00 

■0          OfM 

£^'5o'^ 

O  i>     •  r^j 

<M 

vO  ro 

•  ir,           -H  ro 

O  u->'^          O^ 

o  o    •-'.!:• 

CD 

0  0\ 

•  OC    ^■^  "^ 

Sn  °  2"^ 

O  O      -00 

00 

vO«-. 

•I/-.         COO 

.  "C 

«   O   ^ 

;  of  poli- 
(less  face 
insurance 
on)  under 
h  claims 
e  made. 

o      -^  o 

0 

rj  -t 

00  -r  0 
0  0  ■^  "■ 

""'.  '^.  -: '  ^ 

r-i  CM  n  00 
C4        <^ 

o      —  o 

O  O        cc  o 

W-.  CO 
0  00" 

1-'  rj 

13 

^^ 

'o 

CM 

'0 

<U          (U    (U    o    t- 

O    05    W,    I-  •"    (U 

cTj  (u        a>  A3  > 

feo'^-5  ^  " 

C  r^i  0  <^i  0 

^"H 

ro  CO  'n 

(^  0  0  r-  00 

0  t^  0  -t  0 

^.0 

t-  -f  0 

0  sO  0  '■'';  1^ 

t/i 

u-,  --i  0  f^  1^ 

CM  t^  0 

CO  ^  0  rt  0 

o 

(N  O^  00  0  0 

0   u 

t^  c^i  0" 

•-"  r';  c^l  \r,  00 

-) 

T— <  \r,  ,— ( 

'^   ri 

CM  rO 

^  ^          0 

rj  00 

;^E 

<> 

«-H                         v.^ 

■(-> 

^ 

^H 

■.^ 

QJ 

^ 

"0 

■^ 

,  -CI  i 

-lO       0 

C 
fo  0 

-0 

0 

.-  w  C  Tj   ,A 

>o  0      0 

^;i 

fO 

0 

^-B'^ua 

CN  0          fO 

<> 

^. 

rt             -  O    O 

.'^■^      . 

<^z 

.  10  . 

.    .    .  »o"    . 

Salv; 
cash 
ounts 
lloth 

ducti 

r;jcoto~ 

CN*^ 

■s     ^' 

^^^'^^ 

K-""^  K 

So 

S        R 

R   R   R         R 

O    rt 

2i 

r-i  00 

3 

vr>              CM 

0) 

ro  0  V'l 

«C 

00        r*« 

l>.              CM 

y 

rf-^  o_cc 

fO        <» 

fO              »0 

rt 

0  m 

c 

•*         Tj"" 

\r>               ■^ 

J- 

rO  0 

vO 

3 

.  0  CM 

."^ 

0 

w 

^-    (U 

.s 

■r*                          ■«• 

*_3 

R                   R 

R 

R   R         R 

c 

»— < 

0  LO  0  <M  0 

>o 

t^  w->  »-l 

00  0  0  0  oc 

w 

0  vO  0  0  0 

▼-4 

vo  00  10 

vO  vO  0  0  r^ 

VI 

O 

10  00  0  ■^  0 

ro 

^0_  0_  00 

CM_  — _  0_  '^  0_ 

c~^J  0'  r^  0"  t^ 

0' 

^"oo"o 

r^  rO  CM  CO  00" 

CO  ■^  CM 

•>r 

^  (M  ■* 

■^■^      o> 

_ 

(M  r-> 

»-t 

CK 

">             »o 

t/7 

2 
o 

— T^' 

^ 

cm" 

5' 

S-.' 

^ 

i-i 

CM  >/->          rO  Tj< 

0 

\r)  rr. 

•«*•  —  00  r^ 

0          — 

t^ 

■^  rO 

0 

■<1' 

"^ 

3  "  ri 

0 

0 

0 

i2        w 

w 

w 

G     • 
0     • 
*->     • 

'rt'cl 

'5'S 

■2  Mil 
S  B  5.0  w 

P*  to  f  u  qq 

U  <5  C3 

CO    C) 

■g.S  0  0  0 

00 

^ss 

-  65323 

Q  0 
00 

000 

aaeaa 

BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      Si 


100.00 
89.10 
96.19 
97.23 
74.46 

80.50 

(7) 

57.65 
8     47 

75.00 

ta  obtainable,  the  company 
nee  Providence- Washington, 
inly  reinsurance  German  of 
All  reinsurance  of  Fireman's 
comments  oa  another  page. 
2ading;  looses  not  paid. 

2.000 

2.751,984 

1,819,238 

17.250 

852,561 

«N  0 

c^i  0 
tN  vn 

120,500 
80,866 

353.000 

"vj" 

2,000 

2,452,111 

1,749,872 

16,773 

634,822 

1.829 
13,987 

954,719 
29,875 

537,341 

■0  0    -  vn 
^000 

c 
a 

0 
0 
o_ 

response  to  repeated   requests.          (6)   Estimated  from  best  da 
tion.           (c)   Details  unobtainable.          (,d)   Entire  loss  reinsura 
over-insurance;  all  claims  paid  in  full  as  per  proofs.           (/)   Ma 
and  manner  as  German.     Details  of  loss  not  furnished.          {g) 
d  in  bulk.          {h)   Denies  liability  under  earthquake  clause;  see 
;  settled  as  per  proofs.         (;)  Percentage  omitted  because  misl 

ntl. 
nil. 
95,201 
477 
288,317 

443 

1,013 

46,320 

{a) 

315,368 

sOt:}in 

0^  0  00" 
(^^  hJ  CO 

""^       «^    to 

tn 
u 

nil. 

908.040 
690,309 

nil. 

nil. 
nil. 

149,255 
(a) 

132,320 

18,000 
Included  in  figu 
nil 

u 

2,000 

3,360,152 

2,535,472 

17,250 

999,716 

2,272 

15,000 

1,150,295 

29.875 

935,030 

69,467 
104,866 

(g)  3  5  3, 000 

■o 

—  ^  ^  '-  r- 
•*  vO  —  vO 
vn  r*       vn 

rn  vn        t^ 

3    3 

CO  Tf           'J' 
CN 

0 

(a)  Information  not  furnished   in 
ignoring  requests  for  informa 
{e)   Laige  deductions  due  to 
Freeport;  will  pay  same  time 
Fund  ;  compromised  and  pai 
(j)  Reinsurance  of  Austin  fire 

<h      ■ 
O     . 

<u  3" 

c  qz 
ode 
0  0  C 

Des  Moines,  Des  Moines. 
'El  Dia,"  Cartagena,  Sp. 
Dutchess,    Poughkeepsie, 
Dutch  Underwriters.  .  .  . 
Eagle  Fire  Co.,  N.Y 

Eastern,  N.  T 

Empire  City'Fire,  N.  Y.. 

Equitable  F.  &  M.,  R.  I.. 
Equitable  F    Und'rs,  111.. 

52       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


C 

6 

o 
U 


Pu 


C 
o 

c 


CO 


I   w  ,.  o    . 

fc  :     o  5  rt 


..  wi  3  J2  rt 

°  «i  c  e  ^  '^ 
y  wi  i-i  I-  -p  <u 


<5  O  O  -< 
>0  »^  r^  O 

^  Tf  to  O  0\ 

«~» 

•OOt^ 

■  o  o  >o 

■r^   O    ■^   00 

0>  O^  0^  O 

3 

rj  O  vo  "»!•  o 
On  00  00  00  t^ 

s 

3 

•00  00  00 

O  fO  o  o 
O  00  o  o 
>o  r»  O  to 
r^  ■^  fO  po 


O  O  O  ■*  O  O 
O  O  O  tN  O  O 
W1  >o  O  00  to        O 


o  o  -^ 
t^  o  »o 

0»  to  rf 


ti-)  po  ^  O  O 
t^  to  to  in  O 
CO  fn  r^  CN  O 

<s)  ^  to  O  t^ 
•-I  -H  to  O  fO 
f^  ro  00  O  to 

o 

to  -.<  00  O 
to  O  t^  <N 
00  00  t--  t^ 

■O  CS  CN  O  to 

CVJ  lO         1-^  ^ 

OO  Tt 

f^ 

1,790 

6,119 

(#)88 

-^  "^  w  G 

-  0)  o 

5  o  a 

o  rt 


bcO 


C/3  ?J 


ro         ■*  0>  CO  O 
to        <N  O  00  00 

On      •^  no  -^  r< 


Pi 


o  •* 

O  00 

»0   Tl" 


S  K  K  Kw       K  K 


O 


O  f^  o  o 

O  to  O  to 
to  CO  O  <N 


O  —  O  ■*  to 
O  -^  O  00  t^ 
to  ro  to  t}<  to 

<N  to  tN  r^TrC 


O  '*  O  00  O 
O  to  O  O  O 
O        <N  to  rj<  o 


2     " 


C     •  t-  o     • 

O  oo-g    •■ 

o    .3    r^ 
u    ■  c/i  vj  _r 

05!   C   i-   C 

i"^  p  ain 

•=  <u  b  o  «u 

3    U    3    Ui    u 

WM:    WW 


^r  ^  S  u'  '^ 


U      ^' 


^  o   • 

<u  bo   ■ 


u  i-  a> 
o  o 


^  _  '  4)  4> 
O  O  C  TJ  T3 
«i   C3   C4   0)   V 

Cih  £i.  Cx.  Cb  Hi* 


I-.  w      ;3  ;s 


_o    - 

in  .— 
en  05  - 
3   u  ^ 

OQ  c    . 


c 

ca 

-^ 

J3     , 

< 

4) 

13 

c 

S 

3 

rt 

c« 

Xi 

C 

§ 

o 

SB 

*t 

<u 

<U 

."» 

iXi  b  b.  ix  W  &i 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


53 


NO  m 

o 

■*ro  O 

■  O       00 

U-)  00 

t^ 

CO  T}«  CM 

.  to         tr, 

ir>  o> 

^ 

(N  ■*  CM 

•  to   _.  (^1 

00  00 

00 

00  00  0> 

•  r^  5"°° 

r^O       O 

fO  O  NO 

CO  O  "-. 

Tt  CO          00 

■<}<  O  to 

o  oo 

O0_<*       ro 

•o__q.r-._ 

0_0_io 

O^  t^        O^ 

no"  th"  ^" 

NO  to"—" 

O  IT)          o 

00  CO  00 

On         ct 

fS  lO          W-) 

CO       o 

O        NO 

/•^^-v 

O        <N    o  CN 

o  o              -^ 

3^<N        -^ 

ro  r~  O  "^  CN 

(S  tN    o  O  lO  O 

On  O  <N  O  NO 

O  ro  ro  O  IT) 

(N  On  ■ ;;  i/^  r~.  fO 

CO  O  O  On  O 

\0  "-)  00  <M  ro 

On  O  to  OO  CO 

ro  vo  t^  CN  o" 

•*"  CN  <N  rj*"  J~-.' 

{N  to  O  O  vo 

On  fOy  rO  CS  On 

IT)  ^00         rp 

iO  CS  CM  CO  0_ 

t^  'J*    4)  t^          On 

00  ~,to        CO 

«'         CN          CN 

^"    s 

t-l          r-l 

^ 

V 

»— ' 

3 

rt 

O  O  m  00 

fe  fO  to  ro 

.i^  o>  CNj  t~» 

'i'        00  O  CO 

^  O  0^  rji 

vo              NO    •rt    •t-H 

too  t~-^o_ 

»5  to_^  00_  o_ 

.         .  ^   NO   ■«4<   fO 

O        to  «-!  to 

ro"  -h'  o  oT 

ro"        oo"       to" 

';^Tt<  t--.  •<t  lo 

rj  ~J  ^„  ro        ro 

to  OOn        O 

3    "^     •=»< 

R  s  o- 

s2-R     «^ 

w 

•-4 

<u 

I-. 

D 

M. 

o     t^  oo 

O  O  tC  to       t^ 

O        NO        to 

po       O  O  r^ 

0»^        ro        O 

O        O        00 

Ch        NO  O  t^ 

•5}<  t>.    C  NO        vo 

to          CV|          On 

O        <N  O  O 

On  CO  _^  <-!           Cn| 

00        CO        ^  1 

Ov        00  »ri  o» 

00       ^       r>.  1 

to      .  CN        fO 

fO         _4?  CN      .  ■* 

w 

■1           t^        .  •— 

13        ~* 

-^        •»* 

«»-<•»» 

«: 

.5     « 

w        R 

cni  r^  r^  O  t>. 

^  t1<  CO  O  to 
to  00  Tj<  O  "-I 

co"on"-h  O  o" 
CN  On  to  O  CO 
—  CM  O  On  00 


CNJ  <N  00  O  --I 

CM  r}<  t-~  O  -^ 

r}<  to  CM  O  On 

On  to  00  '-1  CN4 

CO   Tf<  Tt"  CO  O 

^    Tjl  »-(  to 


<*        NO  O  ■* 
On  t^  O  O 

Tf  CM  O  00 


O        CO        l^ 

1-1    "O"  Tt  T^ 


NO  O         CO 
Cn)  ■cf  00 

rt  ^  00 


■>h3      • 

>^.  : 

■"^    -'C    . 
o  oo,    . 

;S  G  c  c  S 

M    CtJ    rt    CTj    c3 

csssa 

Crt    (h    Ui    li    li 
iX    <U    (U    (U    <U 

fcOOOO 


■-^  o 

^  w 

ti; 

.  <n 

15 

tK-> 

1-1 

c 


dj . 


0)      •  TJ 

C  C  C3 

ri  rt  rt 

see 

li    Vh    t-< 
<U    (U    (U 

ooo 


•-1  hH    ^       - 

n!  rt  t^ 


^  2J  03  cj  rt 


CI, 


03-0  "5    ■ 

.^^      ^^       - 

•<->     .         t/)   c 

0)30.5      o 

C  ^^  Oh  (/5 

c.S 


™    (/5  '^    CD 

(0  Q,+j  OO  ^is 
O  c  c       *-> 

^  o  c  ^  6 
c  ^  g«2  o 


<n  TJ 


^c  ?« 


W  o  <u        c 

Ho    '^    2i    4>    oJ 


PL,   Q 


c^- 


04 


4J     3    I-, 


3       _ 
o  ^ 


U5 


O 

Q    0)    05 


-   rt  MO  — 

•^   C  rt  00  r^ 

13  O  rt  .  -CM 

<U't3  «    ">  On 


-    o  _  "Tn       oj  7^ 


03 
C 

>N-S 


.2  M^  3  2 

rt  -h  ti  o-      V.  ^ 

r3  c  3  tr  <u  o  5 

h  C  fl,  c/i  !:;  Sj  I' 
c 


54       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


C 

c 

o 

w 


c 

O 

o 
"a 


„  ix  3  J2  rt 

o  1  ^  a  " 

,  C-.5  OJ=  4; 

O   I/)    u 


25;: 


-     -•  <->  S3 


a.-;;) 


0. 


S.^ 


'S  0)  cj  »- 


1..;    yj    Wh    I-    rt    W' 


O   O 


•  »6  to 

■  O  <N 

«f  <^  O  <^i  o 

CN  C^  O  "-.  O 

OO  -  * 
•^  O  <0  to 

O-  00 

(^1 

>0  r^  O  «^  O 
CO  CT>  O  «^  O 

a  o  f>-  o 

00  O  O  O- 

O  «^        00 

o  ■*      •^ 


O  r^  CN    o  <N 


O  O  O  <N  O 
O  O  O  00  O 
O  O  trj  oO  "^ 


O  >0  O  <o  O 
O  —  C  CN  O 
0_  00_  0_  'O^  0_ 

•-I  r^  ir.  •t  O 

^— -  vO  1^)  —  O 
*>  fN  00 


Oi^OO"-"        CMoOOcOO        ^000 
Of'jOOOto        «-imO>oio        ^""vO 


§1 


o 

o 

vo  O 


—•  \0  t^  >0  •'^ 
-O  fO  ^— .rt< 
(^  (N  -O  T-i 


V  1-3 


^^ 


4)    O 


•5  -a  -g  "vj  o 

™  <5  S  O  3 
^2§:3'0 


O 


C>4  <0         CO 


O  <N 


«^  to 

OO  (N  lO 

.     .  to 

^^'^ 


>0        U-)  lo 
00  fM  O 

.  >0      .  to  Tf 


O  >0 
ro  <-i 
lO  t^ 

CO  00 


.8 


wt  ^  ^  ^  ^" 

C   C   S   C 


o  •^      o 

to  •*        O 


8CC  O  CN  O 
"-,0  00  0 
C  <3  to  CM  to 


fo  NO  O  to  O 
-<  —  O  f^  p 
O_oo  o_>o  o 

•-1  r^  to%f  O* 
O  (N  »"  u^ 


E  °  S 

3       ^ 


O  •t        to 
to  >0        O 


rO<*5rOa^'-«        c<^ioC<»-<fO 


.™  ;  :  X 

6d   -^ 
K  o  rt  H 

Or"       .  ^ 

•^^'^  w    • 
m   O   ..   .,    .' 

jt;  «  o  o  o 


CQ  •  -  ►^  13  **- 

— -^      c    • 

3:=„^^ 

.s.is.E.'*^ 

a  c  c  a  Q 


BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       55 


97.78 
83.80 

.00  CO 

•  00  <N 

•  PO  O 

•  00  o 

90.52 
87.35 
47.99 
84.00 

le  company 
ating  policy 
as  involved, 
policies;  see 

8,250 
25,667 

^ 

(c) 
1,968,989 
4,160,369 

(c) 

(a) 

5,164,875 

14,550 

14,971 

5,000 

(o) 

(6)  Estimated  from  best  data  obtainable,  tl 
!e.          (cO  Approximate.          (e)  Excludes  a  flo 
if)  Company  out  of  business,  but  reported 
d  at  50  per  cent.          {h)  Earthquake  clause  in 
re;  paid  as  per  proofs. 

8,067 
ing  Garden. 

21,506 
(6)10,000 
las  of  London. 

4,000 

1,651,591 

4,003,566 

(6)1,500,000 

3,630,605 

4,675,409 

12,719 

(g)7,185 

4,200 

242,877 

183 
figures  of  Spr 
4,160 

■»-> 

< 

Ml 

O 
-.  in 

3 

(0 

261,577 
229.190 
(c) 
575,157 

489,466 

1,882 

(«)  7,000 

800 

34,864 

nil. 

Included  in 
nil. 

C 
T3 

326,326 
519,338 

(0 
3.583,326 

3.126,515 
9,552 
nil. 
nil. 

72,870 

ished  in  response  to  repeated  requests, 
or  information.           (c)   Details  unobtainab 
ited  States,  under  which  loss  was  $13.50. 
of  Traders  of  Chicago.     Liability  estimate 
e  herein.         (i)  All  reinsurance  of  Austin  f 

3 

[^ 

2,295,315 
4,752,094 

7,789,088 

8,291,390 

24,750 

(g)  14, 186 

5,000 

350,611 

J 

O^  O        CN        >o  «  '-I        tn 
OO        <*>        <N                    «-i 

Ins  Co.  of  State  of  Penn. 
Insurance    Underwriters. 
Jefferson  Fire,  Phila.,  Pa. 
Johnstown  Mutual,  Pa.  . 
Kings  County,  N.  Y 

King,  London,  Eng 

Law,  Union  &  Crown,  Eng 
Liv.  &  Lon.  &  Globe  Eng. 

Lloyds,  London 

Lon..  8c  Lancashire.  Eng. 

London  Assurance,  Eng. 
London  Mutual,  Canada. 
Louisville,  Louisville, Ky. 
Madison,  Madison,  Ind.  : 
Manchester,Lcmdon,  Eng. 

(o)  Information  not  furr 
ignoring  requests  f 
covering  entire  Un 
ig)  All  reinsurance 
comments  elsewher 

56       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


•4^ 

b 

-<ooo  o> 

VO 

o  ^ 

(>  r-.  >0  r*     - 

c 

4-4  .—4 

o>  t^  O  fO 

•* 

O  <N 

.-1  t^  to  00      • 

O  rO  lO  <N 

r>. 

ooo 

r^'OO'"*     • 

o  cd 

<?>  C^  00  o 

o» 

OOO 

50  u^OOO     1 

I    u 

<U  S  OJ 

»^  O  O  »^ 

O             Occ 

0  0  CN  •<* 

;3  o 

iii 

«3 

■«»•  oo  <>• 

O             Ooo 

0  0  -<  00 

o  rt 

00_O_O  «~~_ 

O                         O-H 

O^O'T--^ 

2  3^ 

rt 

toto^'f-." 

<i             ^(D 

r^'fo'iori 

C/5 
M-l     (/I 

.S  o^ 

IT)                    Tf 

'o"o' 

00  10 

4)^"' 

<U  (U  o 

ll 

w-.^ 

w> 

y  u) 

K  Cs 

<u 

(4  a> 

<u»c! 

^ 

fe-5 

o:S^ 

d 

6 

3 

00  O^  O  ''^ 

r^  ro  m  O  (N 

ro  <N  0  f<^  0 

<N  OO  lO  rO 

Tji  ,-,  o  o  o 

<N  fS  --<  t^  <-» 

52 

^_>o_oo  o^_ 

00  »^  ••-1  O  o 

00  10  vO^  c>  c« 

(0 

o 

rC  Tj<"       ut" 

lO  t^  O  "-i  00 

iX"  T-T 10  o>" 

;5 

►3 

00                 00 

j^  00 

1^-* 

■*          «o 

^PO 

fS  <N 

+> 

v4 

<S 

•** 

0) 

Z 

I-) 

s 

.s 

,  "^  <u 

<=yir>^           Ov 

ro  CN  vO         >0 

r^  w)  i/^  »o 

» 

"2  S'O 

-  fl> 

• 

O  ^         00 

lO  cs  ■<*       o 

t^  rt  >*  00 

1^ 

4) 

c 
o 

•^00                 -1 

-H    ■*    0_             -H_ 

•-^       00  r.     . 

<4 

C/3 

O  OS 

■2 
o 

3 

♦^          s 

nj 
<u 
en 

S       21 

g 

«  rt 

(1< 

•I 

o 

o 
2 

ro             >o" 

«o" 

a 

t-«             ro 

o 

^o 

3 

"^ 

.     .  vo     .     . 

~J  ~;  -^  —•  .-i 
■^  '^  •««  '^ft  '^ 

^^ 

•*•  •<* 

•^  -T*              •^•^ 

«t 

G 

S  R 

s  ;:      s  ;: 

;:  c  s  c  c 

J 

Pi 

Tt  O  O  "^ 

O  "^  O  O  00 

0  f^  t--  00  0 

• 

00  O  lO  CN 

O  fD  00  O  00 

0  ro  ro  10  •-< 

w 

r»^  0_  00  i-» 

0_'-<^t-_0_»H 

0_>J->  0_C>  CN 

•4 
O 

^ 

00*  lO        c< 

«o  «<^  t^  »-<  o 

t—  — 1  r-  r>. 

^H                      VD 

Ofo      •-• 

00  -^ 

^♦4 

•^-          v 

'•"G^ 

<N  'i'^ 

u 

t^ 

M 

Tl 

<M 

<N 

'* 

s 

O 

o 

0. 

O  CN  ^  <0 

■"to       -^ 

•«*<  CS  fS  Q  »- 

O                    -H 

^-1 

CO  0 

«> 

00              CM 

cs 

^  0 

3    ^ 

'^ 

z    " 

.    CIS  4J    o-a 

SS:   SS 

jiiisss 

2SSSS 

BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.       5  7 


*•  to  00 

O 

OO 

Or- 

O  t-  O 

•O 

»^  r*  vrj 

O 

oo 

O  1" 

CM  t^  00 

CO  lO  ro 

^o 

o  2 

O  'J^ 

-<  t-  -O 

•  ■* 

00  OO  t^ 

O 

O  » 

r-  00  a- 

■  O 

^ 

;2^ 

O  fo  O 

O 

oo 

O  O 

to  i-O  O 

O 

O  <*5  lO 

o 

o  o 

O-o 

CN  O    O 

O 

lO 

to  lO 

in  r— 

00  t-  o 

O 

ro  -^  00 

«o 

<N  C^J 

r< 

(N  O  '^ 

CM 

M  to  c>4 

O  (M 

<N 

^  to 

n  (s  O  00  O 

.-I  CN  r^  t^  O 
•'J  lo  o>  to  to 

O  I'i'o"^  f^ 
tS  ^  <N  O 

tS  to 


O  O  O  O  — 

O  O  O  O  '^ 

to  in  O  >o  O 
c-i  r>4  -O  <N 


O  ^  OC  O  CM 
CT-  fO  O  O  00 

m  o  o-  fo  00 

t^  r-~         <^j  — 
m  l/"j  rt> 

•^  •*  CM 


00         -H  <# 
CO  ri>  T^ 

O  CM  O 


to       OC  — 
a<  o      vo  00 

t>.  t-.        to 

O  PO        t^ 

CM  o  ~  o 


in  •-!  00  O  t^ 
fO  vo  \0  O  tM 
C^  to  O^  to  t 


O  t^  «-<  o  o 
p*  r*.  p«  O 


§000-1 
O  O  O  •t 
10  in  00  10  vo 

^"  CM  o"  CM 


00  10  vO  t  O 
•-^  in  rn  t—  C^ 
—  fO  O  <~0  rO 
CO  '+  —  O  CM 

t>-  r^       t^ 

— '  00       ■<* 


O  Ok  w%  r^  rv« 

«M  Ot  v«  CO 


-<  —   ■*-<-< 


S  3  2  5  S 
•j^  2  c  c  o 

I  S3 .2.9'^ 

rt  CTJ  nj  nj'T' 


C^  5   C   C  "5 


C   C 
O  O. 


.—  ■♦-'  .^ .—  ^ 
CTJ  3  c3  nJ^ 
CS  C  C  J2 

.9     °.9  2 

'^  *j  Sj  'H  Xi 
cd  o3  ctJ  cd  Q^ 

2222:2 


:  :  :  > 

>-.     .    >^>H      r 

^"  £J  «  „>-•< 
«:5  o  h  <^ 

E5      ^  *-■ 
22222 


wow-- 

M  O  _.  Ic 
—  o      — 


O  3 


0)  c  £  .rt 

o~   3'0 
rt  ?^  P  « 


m 


3    (0*^ 


— '  JS  "  o 


tn  - 


w 


3§? 

ox* 


0)  T3 


o 


3  2  o-"S  h 

0-3  y-.—  g 


0) 
l-i    CO 


6S 


§=u^.S 


■•->  >  -^ 

a 

4>    C/> 


OJ   y  O   60^ 

<xtir^  c  3 

-  rt  o  5i 
•-•^  «,  <==  2 

13  ^^^  J2  ** 

•-       c  S  S 

^     6  -  s 

i-i  Co 

3      52  o  <-> 

v„  ^    W    (/5    (/) 

O  vd     ..    I-I  _^ 

C  .3   <U  O 


;8      BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


1 

S 

eJ 

!C  "^"d 

O^t^O 

\0  CM       •      •  -< 

CO  CM  >0      •      • 

<u- 

5S 

rt 

«o  to  »H  0 

««o  C-~ 

'^ 

<OCM*>. 

a 

L4-t 

"— f 

&. 

t^  t--  0  0 

-^00 

0 

t^NO    ^ 

0000  00 

OvO> 

00 

t^  00  t-. 

eg 

0 

— ' 

-i  '^ 

<U 

OJ    (/I 

COC^  ■*  0 

—  0              0 

to         ro 

t- 

0 

c 

3^ 

•d 

00  00  00  0 

00           o> 

CM          CM 

\o  "->  0  i>^ 

no'  ro"  0  fO 

no' CM                 ^' 

00_^        00 

v«  S8 

3 

2-5 

e 

\0  r^  10  --< 

CO                        "^O 

«-4                   ^m^ 

!/) 

10  •>#  10 

ly^                    10 

CM         -H 

_c 

It 

•^"cm'co" 

*^"       3,3, 

'qCm'^^'o" 

4J 

i>  .^ 

fa -3 

"o 

-^ 

6 

•^  0  o\  0 

00  00  0  0  to 

00  rf  0  C 

_ 

<N  0>  rOO 

On  NO  0  OCM 

-1  to  0  0  00 

9 

CA 

r^  to  »-i  u-> 

CMTj-OO  -» 

On__0_<0_0_0>__ 

91 

!o 

aJ  r^  0  ■•-«  <o 

r*  CM  0  o>  00 

VO*  cm"  0."  ^'  fNj* 

1_  NO  ro  0  »-' 

«-«          0  u->  CnJ 

NO  00  •"  «^  On 

{J 

£  '^.fH 

to      0  10  •^ 

•-1  10  to        t>. 

-t-» 

"^(SfO 

cm"      *»i^ 

^^ 

** 

•d 

M 

z 

ii 

s 

<« 

0 

l-l 

c 

e9 

T)   i 

►^  t^  CO  o» 

<0  CM 

NO    to    Tf              NO 

k 

f 

c-o 

ui 
G 
0 

0  CO 

to  NO  C^l          ^0 

^ 

Si, 

U3 

rt 

*»-l  C^_  Tf   ^ 

o\_ 

CM  tO_  .-1          On_ 

bo 

^ 

-5 

°00"pO<N      . 

00" 

cm"  fO  00        to" 

<4 

C 

«  IS 
CO  3 

o  —  'd 

"Tj-ooors 

^   3^3 

T}<   -<   0>/~--" 

^>o^« 

** 

y  nj 

<C 

V 

OU 

C 
•—  <r>  t^  «r> 

•<1<     0000 

to  CM  to         to 

MH 

a> 

10              0   0    NO 

CM  ^  0        tn 

O 

0 

t~>      o_o_>o 

NO  <o  <Jn        cm 

rt 

•d  oTno'o" 

0'      o"foo-* 

to  10  »-•          CM 

c 

ti 

3  '*  r^  o> 

to       0  •*  0 

NO  CN          <0 

o 

3 

"O      .  «-i  <M  -H 

NO             f^ 

•  M 

Ul 

^ 

_C 

v> 

<4 

HH                            S 

s 

J3 

"a 

— 

H 

vo  0>  •"i'O 

to  0  0  0  fO 

0  —  00      _J 

w 

Q»0  Tf  0 
0  fS  CS  10 

to  0  0  0  On 

O'-CM          g 

On  to  0  0  l~-_ 

00Of»_        CM 

J 

0 

10  0  f<1  to 

»o"cm"o*«m  «^' 

•«*•"  0  On"          ^"■ 

vOO00-< 

00        0  0  t-O 

■r-    NO    fO              ^ 

V*H 

"i 

o_>o_o>^ 

^              ■-H    00   to 

CMi-ir>._      ^ 

»^ 

0 

oT  «N«o 

^"     ■^" 

CM*  2^^* 

^ 
«> 

cB 

s 

(14 

- 

^ 

03 

vO  0  tn  CN 

On   <M                      0 

—  ON  00         0 

1 

00  00 

CM                        NO 

CM  0  <0          CM 

V 

0  »"  t^ 

CN                        CM 

^-  to  <o       to 

CO 

°3 

^  ^  ^ 

'0    0 

(J 

^ 

"o 

5^  :  :  c> 

M  :  i:  :  ; 

w  -o  •  • 

r;    r;    0)   <U  •-; 

c>  "=  !;;  c 

t-'tO  t.  V-  Ii 
.        rtCQDQ 

.  (U.2  0  0 

^  fS  .5:i  Q  -«• 

+J   ^J   *J   <-)   -u 

W<   1-   i->   w.   k-i 

00000 

21^^22 

2:2:2:22: 

222; 

0 

BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


59 


■*fO 

.UT«f>0 

VO 

CO  r» 

00  »H 

•  to  <N  <N 

\o 

fO  CM 

dt>I 

•  in  OO 

O^ 

-^  CM 

o^-o 

•  Ov  00  Ov 

t^ 

OvOv 

0-* 

O  fO  0\ 

<N 

OO 

Q  fO 

O  't  o 

o 

Cvj  CM 

O^o 

O  "-1  U-) 

CM 

(>  ro 

•^oT 

r^  rf  PO 

'O 

to  Ov 

CO 

(N  <M 

\r> 

■O    -H 

\r>  CO 

r^ 

ra  t-»  o> 

SS         ^ 

O              f^"  C3        »*5 

^-N  'J     -    - 

v^                     ^ 

^i 

•a 

c 

£ 

rt 

< 

ooocofe 

OOO-iTOO        CNOSOOO 

OOOr^   a- 

O^O— _Oio        — 

VO  J^^  ro  — 

r^O  OO  CC  r^        00 

^^-- 

C>          ^0  0»  wo          0> 

si>         t^t- 

ge      E 

>0_          Tj*  OV 

Ov_ 

W-^.'-. 

•-«"               CS 

"^i^ 

Oci^ 

"^        tj 

O 

T? 

1— 1 

C 
3 

-^  -<  rj-  (N          O 

"d  o  rq 

(^ 

^  LO  O  vC 

)        oo 

C  Ov  CM 

fO  «>  "^.O        o^ 

rt  CJ  CM 

,.-^.— ~J-J  w 

•»!<  LO  O          00* 

•  cm"oo" 

r2      Tf  <N  (N      \o 

^-v  C  VO  •"4" 

s 

s 

t^ 

^!3«N- 

< 

<u 

<u 

Vt 

— 

Vh 

.... 

.^ 

ocfa 

Tj*           t^  T}<  Tj.            00 

fc-iO-  Ov 

'^. 

r^       O^  CO  fo        •f^ 

n^  00  O 

!;^ 

o>       O  -H  •*       O 

o  ^.^. 

t^        ■"-!  r^  \0        r^ 

(«  r^  fO 

^         « t>  -^        fO 

CJ  ro  00 

00       .          -^ 

VO 

W  VO  'ij' 

SSI  a 

^-»  3     - 

S 

c 

C 

*"^ 

O  O  00  Tf    o 

-- O  >0  ro  O        OoT!oOt}«        I 

O  OO  -"-O 

00  O  O  fo  C 

CM  O  nH  O  »0 

O  lO  0^  <N    5 

O^  O  <-■  t^  O        «-' 
O  t^  "*  o"  CN         Tf 

LO    2  00  CM 

— <          CM  (N|  00          O^ 

VO           LO  LO 

eg 

(N                 •>* 

VO 

'^  CM 

^o 

Tj<  CM  r^  O^       O 

—  o 

«o 

VO  00  LO          \0 

ro  t^ 

rr  >o 

.-4 

00  O 

^-»'~» 

/— N             '^ 

CM 

/— s         *""  "^ 

wnS 

3 

vo 

Cal .  .  . 
Ark... 
couver. 

ers ... . 

•  d 

ladel'a. 
Y 

,  N.  Y. 
.Pa... 

rs 

ondon . 
.  Conn . 

Fran., 
mith, 
t,  Van 
N.  Y. 
erwrit 

°1 

a.  Phi 

r,  N. 

oklyn 
Phila. 
rwrite 
iur,,  L 
rtford 

C/J    M       -•« 

ne,  Lo 
rnelle, 

ylvani 
Coope 

X.  Bro 

^'^  in   ^ 

age,  San 
ark.  Ft. 
cific  Coa 
cific  Fire 
cific  Uni 

.^'S<ffi 

£^   ><   X 

lati 
ate 
lica 
nns 
ter 

eni 

ila. 
ila. 
oen 
oen 

w  N  nj  nj  rt 

acn  ii  V  V     j:.cxj2ar 

c 

>0&,A,^ 

^:  A 

^p.     (ii^(i,a.a.     ' 

9|^ 


^ 


u< 

1=3 

b 

•S^- 

o 

.1-1 

«> 

«.> 

"O-O 

V 

n 

c 

^p: 

*>  o 

U3 

n 

3«2 

(i 

8f^ 

■*-> 

OJ 

c  c 

-o 

Ul 

4.> 

01 

3  ^' 

«; 

.«  O 

.u 

O  +^ 

H 
R 

•m 

s-a 

T) 

«j  « 

<U 

a^ 

rt 

b 

E 

cS^ 

^5 

.9 


XiXi 

(/> 

J2 

2i 

Jj 

Wl 

rt 

t/i 

u 

.u 

(/) 

3.Q 

<u 

o 

cro 

00 

Im 

3 

4> 

:: 

•d 

to 

W 

T1 

(U 

+-> 

1) 

4-> 
a 

Q 

c 
S 

01 

JJ 

B 
o 

>> 

o 

u 

f) 

-tJ 

'*-' 

<!> 

(1) 

V 

fc 

tn 

O 

C 

O 

O 

c 

o 

4J 

<n 

c 

a 

(U 

"* 

4) 

y 

fi 

(fl 

w~-* 

<1> 

c 

H 

a 

*J 

•n 

.2 

c 

d 

(U 

c 

0) 

ti 

e 

3 

v2 

3 
"y 

*t-i 

(U 

3 

♦J 

(U 

^n 

o 

1 

a 

(U 

c 

r-- 

373 

ij 

(T 

e 

c 

j= 

o 

M 

a 

■*^ 

C 

r^ 

u 

O 

a 

c 

Li 

c 

,^ 

•J 

u 

W) 

^\ 

o 

60       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


O    w    O 

-•-> 

rt  <ii  *-" 

d 

O          IT)       •  >0 

»^ 

-•CN 

'fr^oOOf 

c 

^^'G  u 

O            .-1        ■  ID 

•^ 

00  0 

tM  m  >A)  ir>  -^ 

flj 

nl 

o 
a; 

a 

O        f^      •  <vi 

(N 

0<N 

ro  ro  r-  0>  O^ 

4) 

O        «      -co 

c^ 

0  0 

00  0^  00  00  00 

P, 

00«-l     Q^ 

£1 

*^ 

rt  O  '^ 

1     V 

?>  fc  to 

O        O        r-« 

fo           00 

ro  l/^  0  «'>  •'I 

;s  o 

•a 

O       -r       o 

-<               CO 

I/-)  0  "^  0  00 

l^'J          O          <M 

t/-)          00 

CN  0  r^  00  ■^ 

1-  3  rt 

rt 

t<i        xy,        m 

r^"               1^.  0' 

^  Tt  ro  u->  ^ 

t/5 

•So-g 

e 

O         -f 

CM                >0  U-, 

•^  w^  CM  00  <0 

o  4; 

O          tM 

r^            >0  <r) 

vo  C>          CO  ro 

<u 

'o 

^^  ^j  t^       •"• 

fO   Tj<"            ^ 

V 

u* 

u  en 

W.    >->    'o 

5J 

Cfl    4> 

ol^ 

& 

• 

fao 

c 
S 

O'S  O  ^  'I' 

—  0  0  <M  ■<*< 

00  CO  0  fM  t^ 

r-.  0  0  0  CN 

CN  10  0  ■^  »0 

9 

O 

10  0  0  0  vn 

0  "^  00  •— '  CN 

/\ 

f^  "C  O  ro  CN 

00  C  0"  f^j  -f 

00  "^  0'  0  (N 

iR 

CTj  00  O  O 

00  —  0  0  "-> 

Tt  ro  CN  ■^  CN 

\j 

h-i  r^  O  C4 

vo  ---^i/o  \0  01 

0  0_        <N  ro 

.  %>      . 

*: 

«4- 

^■-'Tj.        -. 

oT-*     •^ 

«■ 
ft 

:S 

O 

s 

'c 

c 

T3   4> 

2  VO  00  ro 

•f-  >o  "^  t^ 

CN             10  0 

ro  C^l  0           ^ 

» 

J>g-« 

(0 

C 
O 

T}<              —  r^ 

t^  u-j  10         -^ 

M 

V 

(-H  O  ■<i<__r~ 

■*.             "-l  ^. 

^_Tf  On        r-. 

00  lO  <N 

00"          j^-Tu-j 

t/T"rOfN       .  — •" 

> 

r;   4j  X  '+3 

rt  ^  O  3 

~j  -^  O  t^  >* 
5    O         OM 

to 

0) 

<N  u-j     :ti  t^ 

woro           5 

%4 

O'rt 

u 

^ 

3 

Ph 

vC  ^  «N  00 

0                0 

■<*  0          0 

M4 

OJ 

O  00  r~ 

00               t^ 

■*  0          0 

o 

o 

C 

2 

g  00_^  Tt  ■*_ 

r^             (> 

C>  r>._        ro 

c 

■'*  fO  t>.  O 

0"            ^ 

—  r-T      vd" 

^  ^in 

ro              <N 

vo  vo          »-< 

o 

3 

.•OTtc^ 

■^              fO      . 

0  I^     .0     . 

•M 

CO 

~j   4> 

•** 

.s 

wOi-      5 

<-l    ^H  ■«•  -M   ■«» 

s38 

§ 

"55 

C4 

"y 

c 

Ou 

t-H 

O        i^  '^  »>-) 

CN  0  0  «~-  0 

10  —  0  ro  0 

U3 

to 

o 

O        I/-,  u-i  -^ 

00000 

•*  0"-i  •+  r^ 

i 

\rt        in  \ri  t~~ 

(»  q_o_co_o_ 

--  00  r^  •<1'  0 

^        ^"vo"'* 

t^  0  o"\o  0" 

10  ^  ro  0  ro 

>-] 

ro  00  O 

lyj  —  0  f^  "^ 

CN  Tj<  «N  U-)  ^ 

r<-)  (N  CO 

,-1  ^--u-,  0^  ro 

T)-  r^        ^  »0 

CO 

.  i^      . 

f* 

to 

v^  ^H 

CM  ^-'■*          »H 

\n  <0        cJ 

T** 

o 

S" 

V 

o 

fafl 

<2 

l-l 

<U          to 

3       J2 

fN          <N          00 

c>           0 

ro  0  r^  10  ^H 

O        r- 

r^              -^ 

00  0       r-  •«*' 

«) 

vO           ^ 

10               W1 

ro  vr>        ^  CN 

CO 

2 

w>  <o        0 

CN  C>4          ^ 

2;     ^ 

■(/;•■■ 
•  1- 1— 1     •     ■ 

.   (to           -3 

c    •    :    ■    • 

0     •  to  C     • 

.SB   ■  oQ 

•0  txc  ^  c    • 

-  0)  o  2  <i> 

^  1^  .c  -^r  '^ 

•H      oTp  y 

e  3  s^  'H 

<u  0  0  S  5 
e3   1-  Ce^j     . 

~     15  ^  "^ 

K      c  3  rt 

l-^^^"" 

c-2  y  «.3 

—  — '  '^  rt  C 

©0032' 
Q4   u   u   u   3 

<U  Q,-  0  to 

3  OJ2  0  0 

X^S^.c% 

;  A*CkO«C* 

OoioieJCii 

BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO     REPORT.       61 


<o 

»o  r«0 

t^ 

--^; 

C^OO  VO 

t^ 

r^^O 

»o 

t-  O  OO 

e^ 

CM^O 

^ 

di^d 

oo  Ovo 

1^ 

00 

On  t^  O 

c>  o  o^  o^ 

s 

8 

0"iO 

\n 

to  t^  O 

\0  O  O  VO 

<N<NO 

r^ 

00  t^  o 

CvOOO 

\r, 

oo_«^ 

00 

»»_  -^^  o 

— I  O  VO  >-i 

lo 

Oo'rOfO 

^H 

Tj-'oo'cN 

O  to  CM  <N 

«o  CO  •^ 

vn 

CNl  VO 

O             O 

«.4 

VO 

t^              t-~ 

«M 

3 

'-'  c 

•-"^ 

vO  o  o 

t^ 

O  to  r--  O 

t^  O  O  00 

oo  C 

CO  t^  O 

ro  O  m  sO  O 

(S  O  VO  VO 

ro    ^ 

O  "^  ''^ 

\0  O  to  O  00 

rt  O  «^_CN 

^i 

O  i'^  ^^ 

o'o'fN  O"'-' 

to"po"cs~t~-" 

in  CN  ■« 

O  CN  to 

•*          •— 

o;r^ 

VO             Tt> 

VO               o 

^"-^ 

^-v         ,.— V 

V-. 

cS-     v25 

'^  w 

O 

c 

c8 

C 

OO 

>o 

Ov        ovo 

—  •a 

ro 

o 

O        OtO 

-<  a> 

<N 

t>. 

«^       tooo 

-6 

111 

^-1 

fs    . 

VO      .        VO 

•2-  Rg5 

-1   ::2 

o 

s 

« 

u 

3 

lo 

0«N 

«C 

>o»o 

*iH 

lOO 

o  trt 

OS 

c»oo_ 

-^  «>. 

t>r 

(S  o 

00 

t^ 

^-t 

.T) 

r^ 

.    .     ■^ 

»«   0) 

■^1 

K 

s 

^'S     "s 

11     s 

73 

c 

14 

o 

OOio  O 

VO 

O  to  o\  o 

VO  O  O  VO 

o 

O  fN  o 

r^ 

O  VO  r^  O 

o  o  o  c^ 

XT) 

CN  O  lO 

00  O  to  »0  00 

'-'  O  O  VO 

lo 

(N  fO  to 

«— 4 

Ofs.^-H 

0>  to  VO  O 

CO  <o  ■^ 

T^ 

0<N  VO 

O              VO 

00 /r> 

t^           VO 

t^                   y-l 

-"^ 

-/^^ 

S 

CN    o 

to 

«-i  t^  VO 

>o 

\o  to  »^ 

0«S  ^vO 

<N  «N 

TfO 

00             to 

*^ 

«o 

3 

C«               00 

fa  : 

<U    to 

>  <u 

13   cij  4) 

odd 

'53 

w 

3 

C 

.2 
'55 

<ii   :    ■    ■ 

c 

.  C  rt 

3 
PS 

•§ 
O 
o 

3   3  3  g 

O    O    O    ™ 

;f3  4)  «  bobo 

rt  O  3  I-  u. 

tn  o 

o   <u   4> 

<u 

<U   4)   <U43 

•    C/3COC/3C/3 

W(/)C/D(/1(/1 

Ui 

:  wwtf 

)       1 

a 


s 

o 

3 
n1 

o 

o 

f) 

o 

•M 

^^ 

a> 

n 

<u 

B^ 

^ 

. 

3 
O 

-i-> 

■l-J 

O 

c 

3 

< 

"a 

■<-> 

tn 
c/I 

O 

s 

a. 

lO 

-S 

frt 

cS 

rt 

>> 

+» 

•a 

C 

G 

c 

O 

rt 

(U 

■<-> 

u 

4; 

tn 

C 

p 

o 

a 

o 

VO 

t/) 

hr 

■fj 

T3 

1 

(1) 
-u 

O 
O 

o 

t-l 

B 

K 

>, 

■4-" 

■»-> 

T? 

!" 

to 

W 

S" 

c 

^ 

B 
o 

0) 

c  .o-S 

I-  3*0     .  C 
TfJS  >   4)-^ 

W   4)   O. 


OQ- 


cS  o 


o 

■»-> 

4) 

C 

4J 

t: 

3 

C 

o 

a.s 

Oh 

c 

s^ 

4) 

V) 

o 

li 

a 

1^ 

3 

"o 

c 

f 

^ 

4) 

C  O  3   4)  *^ 
t«  '*i  n  to   .- 

3»^    4)    4) 

■o5  o 

?   =   3 


4)    Co 


t/1    4> 
tn    3 

O  3 

cr 

tn^ 

tn  -t^ 

^   „  O  i-i 


b  °  E 
o  ?,o 

c 


62       BEST'S    SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT. 


o  U3  q 


0)- 

*-  o 

4) 


cj  O 


'r3      W 


w 


3 

o.S  o 

ft)  C;  d)  . 

O    («    V-1  »- 


<!>■ 


G-n 

•O  '■^ 

•O  'J* 

r«iOo  o  >- 

8 

^0^0 

O  00 

-  00^ 

•Or- 

t-  o>  o  o 

00r>.  OO 

? 

00  o^ 

O  >0       O  r^ 
O  Q        \rtirt 


g 


oo 

0^0 


•«}<  o  lo  ^     / 
<N  »1<  ♦I'  ^ 


■"3 


o 


«i  S"^  a" 


« 


O  '-  O  O  00 
O  "-•  O  i'^  t-- 
vo  vO  O  r—  t— 


O^  fo  CM  in  o  O 
00  -^  C-  C-  1-  lo 
vO  rj-  00  CN    D  (N 


ro  ro  O  CM  O 
Tf  CM        -^ 

OO       ■^ 


T}>  O  lO  t—    C  '"' 

r-  <r>       O  .-  '-^ 

<0  00        ro   W  -^ 


COO  oca 

O  >-^  O  «<)  »-< 
O  f  M  O  CM  ro 

CO  fM  O  ■«.'■  "^Z 

•«j<        o        Q 
f^         r*i         »*. 


NO    OV 

^  CM 

<»  •>* 

c>  o" 

CN  CM 


c 


vn             00 

00^          '    -^ 

t— 

OOO        r-   ,„ 

S       O-K 

•^         g)^ 

<c 

c 

0>000  'i' 

CMCM  C<  >0'00 

O  ""^  O  "^  "O 

-HCM  O  ^    <Uin 

IT)  0>  O  t—  •-• 

r~  r^  00  t-  ~  CM 

CO  fO  O  CN  O 

PM  m  m  CM  ,^  »-" 

Tt  CM         00 

«N<M          O    CJ'-v 

CM  ^        " 

O     o*-* 

LT)  C-   >C 


OOO 
OOM 

■-crT 


00  (^  o  o  -«v 

Tf  O  l-"> 

r-      o      tr 


00  CM  ^  O 
^0  "5  CO 
O  O         fM 


He^HhJ=' 


BEST'S   SAN    FRANCISCO    REPORT.      63 


o    -o    • 

O      -fN      • 

O  <N  >o  o  o  o 
vO  OO  00  ^  o 

Q\      -  >o  to  O^. 

0>      •  00  t--  CN 

o    -o 
o    •  o    • 

CM  fN  O  (N  00  O 

00  o^  o»  t^  t^  o 

4,500 

360,289 

189,518 

3,500 

2,500 

8,093 
) 

o-^oooo 

O  <N  u")  OO  to  O 
O  oo  O  00  fs  O 
«4'*  ■^"  ro  o"  to  ^ 

fO  rn  ^ 

O  O  CS 

o 

3     >S 

o 

4,469 

(6)500,000 

311,552 

142,336 

3,469 

2,500 
46,410 

5,608 
(b)500 

o 
o 

rO_ 

51 

3,304 

952,243 

1,740,770 

885,901 

4,100 
(01,000 

nil. 

(a) 
48,737 
47,182 

nil. 

1113 

^ 

696 

82,  581 

182,280 

330,985 

1,150 

nil. 

lo  o 

OOO 

lO  CnT 

:^ 

o 

00 

nil. 

191,826 
118,193 
640,853 

nil. 

nil. 

■S3       "S 

"5    '53 

3 

OOtooOO  OOoOOO  OOfOOOO 

OO'^'-iO  OOOOO  Otort<rotoO 

T}'0'*tOT}<  loroOtOPO  0>0(Nt^r-40 

Tj<Oto»-«ro  ^jt^io  S^'^  ■<4<  o  '-'  r^  to  >-< 

O  "^  CN  If        ^-'Os              CN  Tj<  to        '-^ 
t^  r-»  •-I                                                     CN  O  00        sJi 


O  00  CN 


to  «N  tN  <S  rj<  ^ 


fe  j:  „-  «J  C 

O   O  ii  -mI^ 

'Sc'S'S  J 


rt  O  tS 


■•->  wi    r^  u  O 

h  w  a  c 

^^  s  a  ^£ 

"3  4J  ■(->  .iS    p   »rf 
S  to  orai  ul 


-HiS 


oT 

XS 

-" 

>, 

rt 

U) 

C 

at 

cd 

>. 

^ 

rt 

ta 

+-> 

rt 

a 

•n 

e 

<u 

a 

^ 

T-l 

g6 


(U 

>^ 

rt 

e 

'.S 

w 

rt 

WhJ 

Ats 


(U  cd 


^  d. 
^  a. 

ctj<; 


<i> 


4> 


o  o  2 
^  rt  " 

u)  O  '^ 
S'*"  O 
3i22 


.i:i  M    - 


rt- 


w 


C 
■C_^ 

a 


t->    it    V 

H§2 


Scope  of  Our  Service 


Alfred  M.  Best  Company,  Inc.,  are  publishers 
who  report  upon  the  financial  standing,  man- 
agement and  reputation  of  insurance  institu- 
tions of  all  classes. 

It  offers  a  variety  of  annual  service  contracts 
at  a  moderate  fixed  cost.  Its  publications  are 
as  follows: 

ANNUAIi 

1.  "Best's  Insurance  Reports,"  Fire  and 
Marine  Edition. 

2.  "Best's  Insurance  Reports,"  Casualty, 
Surety  and  Miscellaneous  Bdition. 

3.  "Best's  Iiife  Insurance  Reports." 

4.  "Best's  Iiife  Charts." 

5.  "Best's  Revised  Illustrations"  of  Net 
Costs,  Cash  Values,  and  Freniium  Rates  (Iiife). 

6.  "Best's  Rate  Book." 

7.  "Best's  Insurance  Guide  with  Key  Rat- 
ing's." 

8.  "Best's  Recommended  Insurance  Attor- 
neys,"   (with  Digest  of  Insurance  Iiaws). 

9.  "Best's  Directory  of  Adjusters  8c  Inves- 
tig'ators." 

10.  "Best's  Digfest   of   Insurance    Stocks." 

11.  "Best's  Automobile   Policy   Chart." 

12.  "Best's  Reproduction  of  the  Principal 
Schedules  of  Casualty  &  Surety  Companies." 

MONTHI.V 

1.  "Best's  Insurance  News,"  Fire  and  Marine 
Edition. 

2.  "Best's  Insurance  News,"  Casualty,  Surety 
and  Miscellaneous  Bdition. 

3.  "Best's  Insurance  News,"  Life  Edition. 

4.  "Safety  Engfineering-." 

WEEKI.Y 

1.  "Best's  Fire  &  Marine  Bulletin." 

2.  "Best's  Casualty  &  Surety  Bulletin." 

3.  "Best's  Iiife  Bulletin." 


*  t&tM&XM  «&nt  m^* 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


JUN  25  1991 
DUE  2  WKS  FROM  DATE 


1  1 


THE  LIBRARY 

TNWERSITY  OF  CALIFORNU 
LOS  ANGELES 


I  GAYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 
'        Syracuse,  N.Y. 
!         Stockton,  Calif. 


iiiniij  III  Hill  iim  nil  1IIII  Hill  mil  MiiiiHii  mil  iiiNiii 
L  006  338  075  2 


